quote:

---

I thought it was mediocre at best. Horrible choice for best picture.

---

I agree. My wife was completely po'ed that we wasted a babysitting night on that.

I get why it got the critical claim it got. The movie itself was good but i didnt find it all that entertaining.

Finally saw this movie after all it's hype. Actually, the boyfriend got so mad at how stupid it was he stopped it in the middle, and I ended up watching the end later (after falling asleep then having to rewind).

I'm glad I watched it. But the whole thing wreaked of its own narcissism, which I thought was ironic because that's what it was making fun of but it didn't do it in a funny/clever way. The entire film I just felt like ok yes I get it, you all are great actors but let's move the darn story along. A movie like Grand Budapest Hotel, which was also quirky and the acting was superb was so much different--it didn't need to show off its acting chops, because the acting was so good it spoke for itself.

Also, it was clear Keaton did not have super powers. And Emma Stone constantly sitting on the ledge during different scenes was no coincidence. I thought in the end when she saw her dad "flying", this showed that Keaton almost "passed the torch" for the psychosis and that tied in with her constantly being on the ledge... Almost metaphoric for her lingering between sanity/insanity... And once Keaton jumped the ledge so did she (metaphorically).

I was impressed with the cinematography, the acting obviously was good, the artsy symbolic stuff was cool... But again, it just was so overwhelmingly full of itself through the whole film that it just kind of felt like a let down. It's interesting because it seems people either love this movie or hate it, but my feeling toward it is "meh".

"But again, it just was so overwhelmingly full of itself through the whole film that it just kind of felt like a let down."

I keep seeing people say stuff like this over and over and I don't get it. If anything, to me, it seemed like it didn't take itself seriously at all. I mean, the whole boner scene?

The wife and I finally watched this movie. We both thought it was terrible. To us it was a movie by movie people for movie people.

After seeing Whiplash and Immitation Game, it's apparent this movie wasn't worthy of film of the year

quote:

---

To us it was a movie by movie people for movie people.

---

That's the vibe my friend and I got when we watched it. It wasn't amusing.

I thought the movie was pretty good. The acting was lights out.

It is obvious Riggan died onstage.

The original actor who was replaced by Ed Norton... I'm guessing he was assaulted by Riggan and thrown out of the cast rather than getting hit in the head with a light. That was the only part a little fuzzy to me.

I have spent two hours of my life in worse ways.

Rewound the ending and I can't hear any sirens. Neither can my wife.

Weird movie, but I thought it was okay (and weird). Thought whiplash was better, though.

i've had this on my DVR since last Dec, and finally watched it. I actually really enjoyed it. I knew nothing of this film, other than the "washed up superhero actor trying to find relevance." I only knew that it had Keaton in it, so was surprised and pleased by the other acting choices (yes, i have been under a rock apparently).

TCTTS said:

---

Quote:

---

Well this is... interesting


http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a627797/birdman-writer-reveals-plans-for-embarrassing-johnny-depp-ending.html#~p3QgQlyzWDb1pL

---

Enjoyed the movie for the most part. Think I would have LOVED it with that ending.

---

Quote:

---

Would have been interesting but I don't think Depp fits the role in the same way Keaton does. Depp is still a star both critically and (more so these days) box office. The meta level of Keaton being a relatively non-working actor who used to be huge is lost.

---

they could have gone even more meta and had it be John Malcovich.