This has been getting major awards buzz right now. The whole thing is done in one shot, which is what makes this film completely unique. My mate went to an advanced screening of it yesterday and he says it's really good, but a bit bizarre!

I didn't know what to expect from this tbh, I only went because I'm Unlimited and anything with awards buzz has me intrigued, not really expecting to enjoy it. But it did manage to surpass expectations!

 

The 'one shot' concept is quite cool and it is bizarre so I don't really know what my thoughts are but Emma Stone was my highlight. Along with the scene where you see Edward Norton naked from behind.

 

I'm sure that come Oscar nominee announcement day if it's up for Best Picture it won't be my least favourite of the selection.

I really loved this, the acting especially was great :wub:

Watched this the other night and it was really fantastic, definitely worthy of all it's acclaim. The acting & editing was of course fantastic from all corners, but I did also enjoy the storyline and realistic critique of the theatre/film industry and the problems of moving on from being associated with a popular character.

 

The ending was somewhat annoyingly ambiguous, but the psychological elements fitted in really well with the general realism.

Ed Norton was outstanding in this. I preferred him far more than I did Michael Keaton! It's a shame the "Supporting Actor" awards are so strong this year, as he'd be pretty much a shoe-in any other time (still need to see 'Whiplash', but apparently J.K. Simmons really is phenomenal in that!). But as a film, I enjoyed this a lot more than I had anticipated originally. I knew it'd be good, but I wasn't too sure how good. Emma Stone was great in her role too!

Very much enjoyed this. Emma Stone was my highlight, but as has been said, the script, editing, acting, humour... it had it all. Worthy of the awards buzz too, and as a film about cinema itself it makes perfect sense for it to represent the year strongly. The ending was very poignant and i love how the film actually relates so closely to Keaton's own life as Batman/turning down later opportunites to continue the role. A film very much about the actors as well as the characters.

 

This has been getting major awards buzz right now. The whole thing is done in one shot, which is what makes this film completely unique. My mate went to an advanced screening of it yesterday and he says it's really good, but a bit bizarre!

Hitchcock did this with 'Rope' so not completely unique :P but point still stands that it was used very effectively here.

Very much enjoyed this. Emma Stone was my highlight, but as has been said, the script, editing, acting, humour... it had it all. Worthy of the awards buzz too, and as a film about cinema itself it makes perfect sense for it to represent the year strongly. The ending was very poignant and i love how the film actually relates so closely to Keaton's own life as Batman/turning down later opportunites to continue the role. A film very much about the actors as well as the characters.

Hitchcock did this with 'Rope' so not completely unique :P but point still stands that it was used very effectively here.

I haven't seen 'Rope' yet, so I didn't know that, thanks :D But yeah, I think this is why Michael Keaton is singing it's praises so often (he's said that he doesn't usually watch his own films/things but he's seen this 3 times already and would do it about 300 times more!). Probably because it just connects to him so much.

my mum said its not very good

"Birdman" is an independent American production and along with "Grand Budapest Hotel" received the most nominations at the Oscars awards, which were 9 in total! Both of them had four winnings. "Birdman" had similar success at the Bafta Awards after receiving a total of ten nominations despite managing to win only the "Best Cinematography" category. It was also popular at the Golden Globes where it was nominated in 7 categories and won two of them, including "Best Actor - Motion Picture Musical or Comedy" and "Best Screenplay". As you can see, "Birdman" is one of the few films in cinema history where the reputation gained for its multiple nominations, overshadowed the whole movie. I’m sure that the majority of viewers went to watch it because they had heard so much on television and on print / electronic media in the past three months. To be honest, its script didn't convince me at all before this recognition and I was not crazy about it.

"Birdman" is not an action movie with the homonymous super hero but it's a black comedy/drama that has to do with a decadent actor, who is trying to get back on track with a play on Broadway. Essentially, "Birdman" is a film that concerns mainly actors and built with them in mind. It has to do with their agonies, their anxieties, their frustrations and their aspirations too. The film has caustic dialogues, funny scenes, very good performances from around the cast and well-written script. However, some parts of the lengthy dialogues are characterized by incessant chatter and maybe this tired a lot of viewers. Nevertheless, "Birdman" stands out enough for the originality of the script. That's why it won the Golden Statuette for "Best Original Screenplay". I cannot say that I love the story nor moved to the inner struggle of the protagonist. I would separate it into two equal parts after the movie theater had a break. In the first half hour, I didn't like it much and I was wondering why this film garnered positive reviews from movie experts since all seemed so meaningless and incoherent. However, the second part of the film gained more depth and meaning and interpretations became even better. Resounding case was that of Michael Keaton as in the second part, he gives his best! Besides, Edward Norton was very good in his role who caused us laughter with his character. He definitely was one of the most delightful characters of the last year. On the other hand, Emma Stone was quite nice but in no case should she have been nominated for "Best Supporting Actress". The same happened with the nomination of Meryl Streep in "Into the Woods" and I imagine that they were proposed because of non-existent competition. I also found the directing somewhat frustrating and exhausting almost all over the course because Innaritu made very close-ups on the faces of the actors and limited enough the range of the image. Having seen his oldest movies like "21 Grams", "Babel" and "Biutiful", I would say that he is one of the most important directors/writers of his generation. Especially, his total work on "Babel" was excellent and it should have won "Best Picture" in 2006. However, I don't believe the same for "Birdman" although it was the biggest winner at this year Oscar's. It won the two significant categories "Best Director" and "Best Picture" while many people expected "Boyhood" to steal the show. Additionally, the filming of Emmanuel Lubezki was quite remarkable and aptly suggested by the American Academy. Finally, Lubezki won the category of "Best Cinematography".

"Birdman" is not one of the best movies I've seen in the last year because I think it refers to a very specific audience. It could easily have been a theatrical production and as a film, it does not offer you many things. However, it is a noteworthy independent production that convinced the American Film Academy. I'm not entirely sure if it's worth all its nominations which it was proposed for but both men's performances were very good. Especially, Michael Keaton gives his best performance to date! Nonetheless, I was a little bit disappointed about the fact that it won the Golden Statuette for "Best Picture" because I feel that it’s one of the most unjust awards in this category ever.