← Back to Reviews
in
Birdman was an experience unlike any other. FIlmed to appear as if it was filmed almost entirely as one long take (though if you have ever done any editing it's pretty easy and fun to pick out where they hide the edits in the film, there are only a few), the film follows the story of a former movie star (Michael Keaton) plagued by his past endeavors portraying the superhero Birdman (clever since Keaton played Batman and is just now gaining more respect as a dramatic actor). He is trying to gain more respect by putting on a broadway play that he hopes will put new life into his career, as he's kind of washed out after Birdman.
First of all, to even attempt a movie like this is just absolutely absurd and we'll probably never see another movie like it, particularly not one as well done as this one. The combination of Emmanuel Lubezki and Alejandro Inarritu is one of my favorite director-cinematographer combinations working today (Lubezki is my favorite cinematographer period), and what they were able to achieve with camera movement in this film is simply astounding. To be able to achieve the appearance of one long 2 hour take and maintain visual interest in the manner that this film does is unbelievable.
The performances in this film are also all top notch from a stellar cast that included the aforementioned Keaton, Emma Stone, and Ed Norton (one of my favorite actors), as well as a surprisingly good dramatic performance from Zach Galifianakis. Everyone working on this film was firing on all cylinders, and it shows in this astounding best picture winner (though I actually don't think it should have gotten the oscar, the film I wanted to win that year will show up much much higher on this list).
There are many naysayers to this film saying that it's a bit gimmicky or that the surrealistic aspects of the film come off as pretentious. I understand where that comes from but I don't agree. The surreal aspects of the film work for me since we're dealing with a main character who is very clearly insane, and to me the film itself was so good that the style of filmmaking only enhanced it, not acted as a gimmick or crutch for a weak film. Instead the unique and frankly crazy style the film was shot in added to an already great film.
37. Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue or Ignorance)
Birdman was an experience unlike any other. FIlmed to appear as if it was filmed almost entirely as one long take (though if you have ever done any editing it's pretty easy and fun to pick out where they hide the edits in the film, there are only a few), the film follows the story of a former movie star (Michael Keaton) plagued by his past endeavors portraying the superhero Birdman (clever since Keaton played Batman and is just now gaining more respect as a dramatic actor). He is trying to gain more respect by putting on a broadway play that he hopes will put new life into his career, as he's kind of washed out after Birdman.
First of all, to even attempt a movie like this is just absolutely absurd and we'll probably never see another movie like it, particularly not one as well done as this one. The combination of Emmanuel Lubezki and Alejandro Inarritu is one of my favorite director-cinematographer combinations working today (Lubezki is my favorite cinematographer period), and what they were able to achieve with camera movement in this film is simply astounding. To be able to achieve the appearance of one long 2 hour take and maintain visual interest in the manner that this film does is unbelievable.
The performances in this film are also all top notch from a stellar cast that included the aforementioned Keaton, Emma Stone, and Ed Norton (one of my favorite actors), as well as a surprisingly good dramatic performance from Zach Galifianakis. Everyone working on this film was firing on all cylinders, and it shows in this astounding best picture winner (though I actually don't think it should have gotten the oscar, the film I wanted to win that year will show up much much higher on this list).
There are many naysayers to this film saying that it's a bit gimmicky or that the surrealistic aspects of the film come off as pretentious. I understand where that comes from but I don't agree. The surreal aspects of the film work for me since we're dealing with a main character who is very clearly insane, and to me the film itself was so good that the style of filmmaking only enhanced it, not acted as a gimmick or crutch for a weak film. Instead the unique and frankly crazy style the film was shot in added to an already great film.