VANITY: "Birdman" Yuck!

NONE | March 22, 2015 | Self

[fatnotlazy]

Yesterday, I broke my long-standing streak of not having seen an Academy Award winning/nominated movie in several years. A friend talked me into seeing "Birdman," the film starring Michael Keaton.

It was perhaps the most excruciating 2 or so hours of my life. Much of the time I couldn't follow what was going on. The basic plot is about a one-time super hero actor now working on a Broadway play. Half the time I didn't know what was the play and what was "reality."

Then there were the F bombs. Now I'm not a prude and can tolerate foul language to some extent, but really, does the F word have to appear in every sentense of dialogue?

My friend said that "Birdman" was an art film. I guess that means a film about gibberish. I'm old fashioned. I like my films to have believable, coherent dialogue, an understandable plot and characters I can care abljt. This movie had none of the above.

[Mariner]

"The best move I’ve seen in decades was “Guardians of the Galaxy”.....Very well written and the acting was superb!"

I wholeheartedly agree!!

While I knew such an achievement (you know, real entertainment) had no chance of winning Best Picture, I was deeply disappointed it didn't even receive a nomination.

[Hot Tabasco]

I was deeply disappointed it didn't even receive a nomination.

I almost threw my slipper into my plasma when it wasn't even mentioned.........I'm still trying to recover from that magnificent movie's total rejection by the "Academy".........DANG!

[tumblindice]

Harvey Birdman, atty-at-law?

[djwright]

I watched it last night and really enjoyed it.

Michael Keaton gives an amazing performance and should have won the Best Actor Oscar.

This is definitely an art movie and things aren’t as cut and dried and tidy as a typical Hollywood movie.

[BarbaraInSC]

I loved it. The back stage scenes at the theater, the very funny Edward Norton character, the "single-take" camera trick all kept me interested. Most movies bore me with predictability, but in this one, I had no idea what would happen next. The Emma Stone character was heart-breaking and so familiar. I loved Michael Keaton's restrained performance as a one-time super hero, but perhaps a failed husband, boyfriend and father. The ending made me smile although maybe I didn't understand it.

[Dave W]

I loathed that movie with a passion. It easily is in the bottom 5 movies I have ever seen. The only moments I liked are when Keaton is telling off the NY Times film critic. I hated it from the moment the movie started - Keaton meditating in his briefs and it was downhill from there.

The only reason it won is that it was about some aspect of show business. The Artist was OK - had a great gimmick, but it won because it was an homage to Hollywood.

[Dave W]

Thanks for explaining one of the more ghastly movies I have ever seen. Horrible.

[Mears]

I saw it the day it opened and it was very crowded.

Walking out most people agreed that it stunk.

I thought Michael Keaton was terrific,though,and deserved Best Actor-(and I saw all of the the pics that were nominated)

.

.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***Hollywood is largely responsible for the crassification of society. ***
Hollywood movies used to be so safe you could drop off your kids and not worry, even at the so-called “adult” movies.

Then bobby Kennedy was murdered and the USA went into an anti-violence hysteria. They blamed...comic books, pulp fiction, TV shows, guns, “violent” movies.

So comics dumbed down, pulp fiction changed their lurid covers, TV shows dumbed down to kiddie shows, the 1968 Gun control Act was passed, but MOVIE PRODUCERS said they would police themselves with a joke of a rating system.
Ans so it was.

Hot D**N! The HAYS code is dead! Produce them if you got them! Movies began to shoot new scenes to get the R rating! foul language, blood and gore, hotter than hot sex of the worst type soon was on the screen! it was no longer safe to drop off your kids at a movie theater, even at kid shows the trailers were often for R rated movies.

Soon movies with R ratings were downgraded to modern PG-13 to allow for even worse language and sex, blood on the screens, yet they still claim it is “to protect our children.”

Ever wonder why an R rated movie soon to be released has a trailer aimed at the average 14 year old?

[zipper]

Yes, it’s amazing what young people are exposed to when they see a movie, even those rated PG. Hollywood doesn’t want children to have innocence. They want to take their innocence and replace it with cynicism. They want to turn them against their parents. They want to “enlighten” them, which of course in reality means liberal brainwashing. It’s all corollary to what they’re taught in the school system, and expected to conform with and recite later, in their college years.

[Argus]

BTW, all the Keaton fans here might like his next movie - he plays Ray Kroc.

[arthurus]

I pretty much gave up on new movies a long time ago. I occasionally get an old one on DVD because I was interested in it when it was new but was tired of going to a theater to see something that had good recommends from friends and relatives then getting disgusted that I had spent $xx and a couple of hours on cinematic drek. When a film is old one can trust what folks say about it more. The last one I went to in a theater was Alice in Wonderland because the hybrid CG techniques looked to be interesting and I always liked the original story. 5 minutes into the movie I realized that it was a formula Disney flick and no more. One knows immediately most of the course of such a movie from the first few minutes. It did not then surprise me even a little. I sat through it because I had taken my daughter and she wasn’t yet inured to Disney. She is older and wiser now.

[RayChuang88]

I think much of the problem of Birdman is that unless you're very familiar with the mindset of people living in the New York City area, the premise of the movie is lost in the moviegoer. People who live in the NYC metro area said Birdman makes a lot of sense....