Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

[dave1606]

Posted: 10/26/14 at 2:27pm

Caught this this morning, and was blown away.. For starters I was thrilled to see the St. James figure so prominently in the film, and the opening shots, following Michael Keaton to the stage is nothing short of a masterclass in cinematography and direction. Ir is rare for a film to live up to the hype, but this movie if anything exceeded my expectations.

Michael Keaton is astounding the title role, and the always lovely Emma Stone is excellent in her scenes as his daughter.

The rest of the supporting cast, Naomi Watts and Amy Ryan are excellent as well and just having seen her on Broadway in A Delicate Balance, I thought Lindsay Duncan was particularly good in her part.

It is a unique (and a little weird) film, but a thrilling one. The camera never stops moving from the opening scene to the last. Count this next to Boyhood as one of the best of the year.

[The Josh]

Posted: 10/26/14 at 3:24pm

My favorite movie of the year. This one truly lives up to the hype!

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 10/26/14 at 4:14pm

An incredibly bold, weird as hell, and absolutely brilliant film. Bravo!

[HorseTears]

Posted: 10/26/14 at 4:36pm

It looks very I-Heart-Huckabees-ish. Hopefully I'm wrong about that impression?

[haterobics]

Posted: 10/26/14 at 5:06pm

I loved this film (and abhorred Huckabees).

I also had a nice laugh in the movie, as I remember walking past the St. James with this marquee and thinking, who the hell is Riggan Thomas and why have I never heard of this show?! And even the stuff that would never have been legible on camera was totally on point, like stuff on the wall saying Riggan was making his Broadway debut and fake articles, etc. I think I even snapped a picture of the marquee to look it up later, and never did, hehe. So, yeah, when that marquee showed up in the movie, I was the only person in the house that started laughing...

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 10/28/14 at 12:52pm

I didn't know about the filming either and was very curious when I first saw the marquee! You're not alone.

Actually in the Angelika right now waiting for it to start. Really looking forward to this, especially after these comments...

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 10/28/14 at 1:38pm

This is opening in Pittsburgh on Friday, and I'm beside myself!

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 10/28/14 at 2:52pm

A movie actor of a certain age does a Broadway show and faces challenges.

What a perfect tie in to Encores' imminent mounting of The Band Wagon!

Updated On: 10/28/14 at 02:52 PM

[Fantod]

Posted: 11/15/14 at 10:02pm

I caught it today and didn't love it. It was kind of pretentious and neither funny enough nor dramatic enough, apart from the penultimate scene on opening night. The result is that I did not care enough about a single person or what happened to them. I also was very irritated how inaccurate it was to the theatre. First of all, the St. James doesn't have 800 seats, it has 1,710. Also, the New York Times Critic is not nearly as important as this movie made it seem, and critics never attend opening night nowadays. The scene in the bar with the main character and the critic was almost laughably bad. The movie ended on a strange note that made me feel that the whole film was a metaphor, and the problem with that is that I couldn't tell what on earth it was a metaphor for. Sorry for bringing down the party, but I thought I would share a dissenting opinion.

[haterobics]

Posted: 11/16/14 at 12:53am

"First of all, the St. James doesn't have 800 seats, it has 1,710."

I'm surprised you didn't walk out when they mentioned that...

I don't think it was meant to be an accurate portrayal of Broadway.

[Fantod]

Posted: 11/16/14 at 1:02am

I know, it just seemed like an odd thing to change about Broadway when it would be believable that such a huge star could fill a large theatre as well.

[haterobics]

Posted: 11/16/14 at 1:17am

One imagines they wrote a script in advance of knowing where they would shoot it, and that original script said 800 seats.

Obvious things wrong with it if you review it for Broadway accuracy:
- When they are up on the ledge in advance of their show, no one is going into Phantom
- When they are there after their show, no one is leaving Phantom. In several scenes before/after shows, Phantom is always seemingly dark.
- On more than one occasion, Keaton leaves the theater after a show and no one is bothering him for an autograph, yet when he is in Times Square or anywhere else, he is majorly famous.

I'm sure you could go on and on, but it just really had no impact on the success of the movie to me. Was any of it even real?!

[Roscoe]

Posted: 11/16/14 at 9:12am

I was surprised at how completely uninvolving I found the film when I saw it a week or so ago. I've seldom given less of a goddamn about what was happening onscreen in a major motion picture -- I'd have thought this movie would be my cup of tea but it really wasn't. Just a lot of fancy camera pyrotechnics and actors doing some pretty good work and I never felt more than a passing interest in it at any time. My cup of Sprite was far more refreshing and invigorating, much worthier of my attention.

I didn't hate the film, don't get me wrong. It just made ZERO impression on me at all.

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 11/16/14 at 3:38pm

Count us in the camp who loved this movie flat-out. Best movie we've seen all year (spoken as folks who didn't get the love for BOYHOOD whatsoever.)

We just felt from first frame to last like we were in the hands of a director/writer who knew EXACTLY what he was doing every second. Those meticulously choreographed moves through hallways wrangling actors, fight staging, steady-cam operators, comedy gags, light cues, EFX shots and editing were breathtaking in their pure virtuosity. We thought Keaton was excellent but the true acting brilliance was in the moments between Ed Norton and Emma Stone. We were breathless watching their combined high wire acts all through the film, and were just a little disappointed in their marginalization by the end of the story.

Great design, great execution, crazy-great DP work, this was the movie that gave us true emotional lift-off and put goofy-happy smiles on our faces the whole time we were watching. For us, this was this year's GRAVITY. Pure cinematic joy.

[madlibrarian]

Posted: 11/16/14 at 7:26pm

What's that billboard we see atop the Broadhurst Theater in the rooftop sequences? It has what appears to be a chubby man throwing a sombrero, and, though it doesn't start previews until October, it has a rave quote already. A forgotten bomb? A fakey show? Oh, the miracles wrought with special effects these days!

[Plum]

Posted: 11/16/14 at 10:47pm

I'm tempted to poke at the quality of the script a bit, but it's not bad, per se - it just doesn't live up to the excellence of the execution. The female parts (perhaps with the exception of Emma Stone's) are kind of underwritten, but Keaton and Norton are given so much to chew on, and they make the most of it. But I think my favorite aspect of the whole thing might have been that excellent mostly-drum score.

[willep]

Posted: 11/16/14 at 11:00pm

Madlibrarian - that billboard had me really confused as well, and then I noticed that the marquee for the Broadhurst was for "Lucky Guy" and if you recall, when that was playing, the rooftop marquee was just a huge photo of Tom Hanks, probably not something they wanted featured so prominently in those rooftop scenes.

But put me in the camp of loving the film. Updated On: 11/16/14 at 11:00 PM

[trentsketch]

Posted: 11/17/14 at 7:15am

Normally, I would complain about some of the inaccuracies of how Broadway works in a film like this. However, Birdman is not a normal film about theater. It's a fantasy film about an aging actor who believes he has psychic abilities and communicates with the voice of a superhero character he once played in his head. So, you know, when you open a film with the leading actor floating in front of the window in his dressing room wearing nothing but his underwear, you kind of accept that maybe it's not going to be a reality-driven drama about mounting a Broadway show.

I loved Birdman. It was such a different experience. The drum score was phenomenal (and from a first time film composer, too).

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/17/14 at 9:21am

Days after seeing it what stays with me most are the rhythmic beauty of the single take impression and Amy Ryan's moving performance.

Though I mostly enjoyed it I found it difficult to believe or even fathom Lindsay Duncan's critic (no fault of Duncan's) and was left cold and confused by the story's resolution with its giving up on life (as we know it) not resonating with the rest of the story or Riggan as we have come to know him throughout the film. Perhaps i just didn't get it.



Updated On: 11/17/14 at 09:21 AM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/20/14 at 9:49pm

You know it is a good movie as it is tanking @ the box office

The better the film the worse it sometimes does. Intend to see The Theory Of Everything about Stephen Hawking. Looks very good.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 11/21/14 at 7:42am

Are you high, Roxy? After 5 weeks of release, "Birdman" has a higher per-theater average than 5 of the top 10 movies, and the only ones with higher averages are either new releases or blockbusters. "Birdman" is hardly tanking. Quite the opposite, in fact.

So, by your logic, now it sucks. You're welcome.

[haterobics]

Posted: 11/21/14 at 11:40am

Who judges film quality by box office success anyway?!

[Fantod]

Posted: 11/21/14 at 1:17pm

It is actually tanking at the box office for now. It has an 18 million budget and it has only made 13 million, and studios only get half of the box office income, meaning that BIrdman will need 36 million to make back its money. With advertising, however, it will probably need 50 million to make its money back, which is unlikely.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 11/21/14 at 1:39pm

As cute as your guesstimates are, it is not "tanking" at the box office. It is doing well. It's in limited release and adding screens, meaning its weekend percentages went up, the only movie in the top 16 this past weekend to so do. It's going to get nominated for awards and will have a slow roll-out in Europe through March, which means it's going to have legs -- better legs than it's already shown.

Will it break even? Time will tell. But it's hardly "tanking," and if you think it is, you should consult a dictionary.

Updated On: 11/21/14 at 01:39 PM

[Fantod]

Posted: 11/21/14 at 2:04pm

Fine. Tanking is too strong of a word, but it is not a blockbuster.