What a load of hack shit

What a load of hack shit

I liked Norton's performance

Poor OP was too dumb to understand Birdman. Sad!

Bet you can't give a proper critique without the use of buzzwords.

pretentious movie where actors stroke themselves about acting

JUST

It's inarritu

DUDE
BALLS

>there are people in this world unfortunate enough to not have the brain capacity to appreciate Inarritu

May God rest their souls.

it's not lol, with the exception of edward Norton the cast was pretty self-aware

Notice how the only people defending this hack have an ñ in their keyboard.

he's a fucking hack
At least the revenant looked good, but I think it's more the work of the cinematographer

Its obviously the work of the cibematographer because the directing is half assed

Revenant > Birdman >= Amores perros > 21 Grams > Babel > Biutiful

if you disagree, you're unable to assess cinéma and should just give up and stick to Nolan and Bay

>hack
>pretentious
not arguments

How would anyone be able to notice that, you dumb shit? Birdman was good, and it's insane that Inniritu directed Birdman and Revenant back-to-back.

>Inarritu's fans congratulate themselves for their "intelligence" for understanding the plot & intention of a straightforward narrative film
Makes perfect sense, since that's literally all this hack has to offer: It's pornography for faux-intellectuals, a chance to stroke off your ego and pat yourself on the back for "doing your homework" and seeing the latest awards contender.

What did you actually get out of this, what did it mean to you? Art is pointless, fame is a curse, so here's a self-conscious "art film" to make myself more famous? What is even remotely likable or interesting about this film or this filmmaker? The tagline "The unexpected virtue of ignorance" sums up Inarritu's character perfectly - "Oh, if only I were less intelligent, I'd enjoy life more! Ignorance is truly bliss, tfw to intelligent to appreciate the world!" Maybe he wouldn't be so fucking morose if he actually made meaningful use of his supposed "intelligence" and told a real story.

He directs his cast and crew to create pornography for pseuds, right along with him: Show-offy gonzo Steadicam long takes, exclusively, for no fucking reason, characters that only speak in tearful monologues, pull-quotes and literary references, just pure fucking wank all around. The only saving grace of the film comes from the innate likability & talent of that cast and crew, but they're all taking orders from an idiot this time around.

This film is a jizz-encrusted sweat-sock under Inarritu's bed, it's "LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME" the movie. Fuck Birdman.

>the message of this film is, "Art is pointless, fame is a curse"
Stopped reading there since you're clearly retarded.

Then you were still reading when I asked "what did it mean to you?" Shine a light on my retardation and offer a better take.

>arguing with idiots
that's an exercise in futility, my unfortunate friend

>I didn't understand it, ergo it's pretentious crap
Stick to capeshit, horror films and Lynch, my man

I liked the camera lens and the drumming. felt like I was watching the best youtube video ever.

Then I'll just imagine you had something really smart to say, about how this film isn't just an empty depressive wankfest.

>Produced by Arnon Milchan

feel free but unless that encourages you to rethink the point of the film, you're really just being an empty, depressive wankfest yourself

Pretty fucking stupid post shake my head to be honest

speaking of which does desu still wordfilter to desu or what

worst.marvelmovie.ever

This literally is just capeshit for people who hate themselves. Same level of depth & intellect, applied to pessimism rather than optimism.

>encourages you to rethink the point of the film
As long as you don't have to do any thinking of your own, right? You're proving me right about the Inarritu fanbase every time you post.

I'm guessing it does.

>people can't think without relaying their thoughts verbally
really makes ya think

I liked it, but I went in the theater with absolutely no expectations. All I read was the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance and just had to see how they were going to pull it off.

The movie is about me, and I'm not even an actor.

I found the film to be uplifting, not depressive.

You have nothing to say. "Birdman" sucks, and you know it deep down, but admitting it would mean you have no taste of your own.

Holy shit Lynch is the very textbook definition of pretentious.

feel free to think that
I imagine most people who aren't dumb felt that way

Are you suggesting people pretend to like movies that they don't like?

are you suggesting people pretend to know that people pretend to like movies they don't like in every single scenario where the pretender dislikes said movie?

It's the only Iñárritu film I've seen that I really liked.

> you didn't g-get it
Same shit that nolan plebs say when you call nolan out for being a terrible director

>talent
>emma stone
Sup Forums is worse every hour on the hour

Yes, when nobody can give one sentence to say WHY they liked it, I think so. It's an award-winner with flashy, technically difficult cinematography and big, showy monologues. I think most Inarritu fans like the way they feel about themselves for watching something with the surface-level indications of "serious, quality film" that doesn't really make demands on their comfort or intelligence.

No, we get it with Nolan, but that doesn't mean "it" isn't stupid.

>yfw Nolan will go on to be immortalized as an all-time great by society at large while you remain miserable and bitter and unnoticed and eventually entirely forgotten
it sucks having your opinion mean jack shit, huh, user?

What was your favorite movie of 2014 user? What are your favs in general? Looking for some non-mainstream recs and you seem like a guy who's been down that rabbit hole.

Are you forgetting people, especially here, constantly pretend to NOT like what they do like.

Imagine being this ass-blasted over a movie

pro-tip: much worse movies have won Best Picture

>nolan
>immortalized
>all time great
He literally cant direct and is loved by people who watch capeshit on the reg. He has less to say cinematically than Woody Allen. Hes boring as fuck and has no chops.

>the poledditors who think they are in a secret club are pretending
Lol

your vitriol is adorable and all but it's inarguably irrelevant. sorry my guy. many people who are much more qualified than you adore Nolan and affect public perception and you will never change that regardless of how enlightened you think yourself to be.

Lmao mate he makes bad movies. Enjoy.

again, your opinion means nothing in the face of esteemed, reputable critics who ensure his legacy will be magnificent and extremely memorable. i'm sorry it had to be this way, chief.

My taste isn't even that non-mainstream. There were good mainstream films in 2014. I really liked Gone Girl, Grand Budapest Hotel, A Most Violent Year, Nightcrawler. John Wick and The Guest were a lot of fun. For foreign films, I loved Force Majeure and liked Leviathan. It was a really good year with a lot of good awards contenders, but they went with a pretentious wankfest with nothing to say.

Some all-time favorites are Doctor Zhivago, Goodfellas, The Trial, Leone's Dollars trilogy, Blue Velvet, The Wages of Fear, Battle of Algiers, Predator, The Thing, Inland Empire, Amadeus, could go on

thanks for confirming you're just a bitter shitposter with no exposure to anything beyond the level of Birdman. it makes your whining all the funnier. have a good night, lad.

>implying anything in his filmohraphy will be watched in 100 years
Pleb. Do you think oscars matter too?

Nolan hasno style.

methinks the cipher doth protest too much

m8, you could not be proving my point any better. I did not make that list to impress you or convince other people that I am smart, I picked movies that I genuinely liked, connected with, and would be glad to watch again. Pick any one of them, and I could tell you a bunch of things I liked about it. That seems to be an impossible task for even one single "fan" of Inarritu.

Because he makes films for people that don't actually like films, they use films as a prop to project an unearned self-image of intelligence and taste. "I am better than 'capeshit fans,' and I've got the RottenTomatoes scores to prove it!" That's all it is to you.

good night to you too bb, kisses

birdman? more like tour-de-forced

the virtuosity on display evidently is enough for many to praise this stunt to the sky, but even that virtue isn't all it's cracked up to be: a lot of the performances suffer as the result of the long-take format. keaton's teeth-grinding approach is up and down, and emma stone appears completely lost without the editorial control afforded by traditional cutting. (norton on the other hand is a force of nature and puts everyone else in the cast to shame)
the script is riddled with "punchy" lines that whiff terribly, and the "enigmatic" final shot is a copout (especially frustrating because the film teases us over and over again with faux-suicides).

but mostworst is that the film is a daisy chain of potshots. this is meant to be an "incisive" film but it's more like a manic stabbing at an empty pillowcase with a butterknife. what exactly is this film's perspective, besides the fact that everyone and everything is riddled with bullshit? the only truth "birdman" actually clarifies is that inarritu's purview is hopelessly jaundiced and pathetic. this junk isn't really inside riggan thompson's head (despite the gimmick-laden scenes of "introspection"), it's just underneath his wig. a simpleminded piece of unenjoyable trash whose countless shortcomings are masked by competent execution of choices made in the pre-production process, and in some ways one of 2014s worst releases.

Maybe it's just that no one wants to talk to you. Because you're insufferable.

Your words make my head hurt.

quads

Link us to your IMDb page, so we can learn how a real director does it by watching all the kino you've directed.

Critics mean nothing. Film is a subjective medium. No one's opinion means shit.

Awards shows (especially the Oscars) are always pretentious wankfests and are politically corrupt to the core. And I'm not talking about left-right politics or what most of Sup Forums thinks of as politics. I'm talking about hollywood insiders rewarding each other and stabbing each other in the back, for their own reasons.

I don't have to link shit and I got the quads. Have you seen the dark knight rises. Nolan is a laughabky bad director. Can't direct good editing performances camera movement nada.

So what films from today will have a lasting influence in a century from now?

>Maybe it's just that no one wants to talk to you. Because you're insufferable.
And yet you reply, a bunch of people reply, you just avoid saying anything at all about the movie.

I've seen other Birdman threads. The best anyone can ever come up with are things like "good cinematography, good performances" without even touching on the actual substance of the movie. Because there just isn't anything to say about it at all. It's empty.

>I did not make that list to impress you or convince other people that I am smart
Lol no worries there

Whatever you don't like.

Your aggressive tone gives away your lack of desire to respect others' opinions, so there's no reason to talk to you about what one may find worth liking in Birdman. You'll inevitably be dismissive—that's why you're insufferable and why people are replying to you just to shit on you.

Consider getting a prescription for risperidone before entering the real world; otherwise, you may never make it.

It was better than Brawl in Cell Block 99.
Thats not a very high bar but still....

You're right but that's how everyone is about anything they don't like its called cogbitive dissonance. Birdman is nevertheless a wankfest.

That's really how you feel about CB99? That's really disappointing to hear since folks are pegging it as an awesome sophomore effort from Zahler. I heard my boy Vin kills it.

That's not what cognitive dissonance is.
t. psychology major

I wouldn't be dismissive of other opinions if someone actually posted one. Other anons who disliked the film seem to have no trouble typing a few sentences explaining their thoughts. Why join in a film discussion thread just to say "nah, not worth it, not gonna discuss it"?
>bawww your aggressive tone
It's the Internet. We're talking about a movie. The stakes are not that high

I prefer you when you sperg about villeneuve

>The stakes are not that high
That's exactly why no one cares enough to pacify you. Also, this isn't a film discussion; it's a meme thread. Genuine film discussion, as you're probably aware, is ever-increasingly rare on this board.

For 2014: picture related

Of all time:
1. Dead Man's Letters (1986, Lopushansky)
2. A Man Escaped (1956, Bresson)
3. Guns of The Trees (1961, Mekas)
4. Berlin Alexanderplatz (1980, Fassbinder)
5. Closely Watched Trains (1966, Menzel)
6. The Great White Silence (1924, Ponting)
7. Syndromes and a Century (2006, Weerasethakul)
8. My Night at Maud's (1969, Rohmer)
9. The Color of Pomegranates (1968, Parajanov)
10. Lucky Star (1929, Borzage)

Dude got so mad he forgot how to use punctuation, spell, and form coherent sentences.

This is actually a great reply. Props, user.

This one.

Cognitive dissonance is kidding yourself to prevent your brain from wanting to go insane in accepting the opposite of what you think

OK your definition of "cogbitive" dissonance gives the green light to disregard everything you say for the rest of the thread. Would it be too much to ask for you to start using a tripcode so I can filter you? I'm sure several of us would thank you.

All pseudo trash you autist.

Agreed. Hypocritical self-indulgent garbage.

Villeneuve's a hack, but he's better than Inarritu. I don't think he has much to say, but he can competently put together a genre film that entertains, engages and serves its purpose.

I get nothing at all from Inarritu, at least not when he's doing his usual schtick. I did like "The Revenant" and can respect the effort & craftsmanship he put into making it feel real and grounded. But even that film trips up a bit when he departs from the true story and strains for extra significance.

Yeah, it's the struggle of going back and forth between contrasting beliefs. Not liking a movie and therefore being cavalier to anyone who does like that movie doesn't fit that definition unless you're suggesting people willingly delude themselves about their taste in film, which is a stretch. As they say, there's no accounting for taste. Pretty sure the sperg who's going off about Birdman being a "wankfest" genuinely doesn't like it, but he's also made it clear he misunderstands its message. I'm sure people would be happy to help him see differently if his posts didn't scream "DO NOT CORRECT ME."

>Genuine film discussion, as you're probably aware, is ever-increasingly rare on this board.
m8, I am trying. I meant every word I said about Birdman. I don't like it. I explained why. I am sorry if I yelled too much in the process, but this isn't a classroom it's Sup Forums.

I swear, fans of this movie are pod people. All available data proves my assumption correct - it's an empty film that dazzles with showy long takes and big monologues, and leaves you with nothing to think about at all. You won't defend it because it's basically indefensible.

I won't defend it because: A) You're an unpleasant, myopic person; B) I don't really care about your dislike for it; C) Your criticisms lead me to believe you don't know what you're talking about, and those are the absolute worst type of people to "debate" with.

>he's also made it clear he misunderstands its message
What was your take on it? I honestly do want to know what people see in this film. I'm being over-the-top because I think it's funny, but if someone offers a real opinion or interpretation I'm not gonna be a jerk.

Worthless.

>better than Inarritu
Hes ont he same level of hackness

I liked Norton. The rest of it was pretty fucking meh. Not sure what the hype was. Then again this was the movie I watched after whiplash so

Fantastic if somewhat self-indulgent film about the importance of intent and sacrifice in art.

But at least his films work on a surface level. They're not high art, but they're not ineptly made and they meet the requirements of their genre.

Inarritu makes no attempt to satisfy his audience on that level - he's aiming for high art, serious drama, real "statement" pieces, he structures & sells his films on those terms. But then there's no statement, just a load of hot air. Like a joke without a punchline. Amores Perros, 21 Grams, Babel, Biutiful, Birdman, all the same shit.

It's more about celebrating liberation from outside pressure (suits, critics, audiences) while following your passion IMO. The suicide attempt was symbolic of this attempt to separate the art from the ignorant patron mass and Emma Stone beaming at an apparently elevated Keaton suggests he achieved this goal. The question of the legitimacy of the suicide itself adheres to Keats' concept of negative capability.

Really, who cares what some thousand-year-old bitter cunt thinks about your labor of love? You did it for you, not for her or for the rest of them.

I do agree that intent and sacrifice are key factors in the quest to manifest one's most compelling emotions, but I believe the take-home message is what I wrote above. Let me know if you disagree.

rude

I 100% agree with what you're saying, I see that as the sacrifice: the separation of art from the patron mass means, in this day and age of film-making, a loss of money and prestige. You get people making millions in super hero films then taking a break to make their "passion projects" which rarely do well but in terms of artistry they are rich as hell (Black Swan is an artful film which did very well, so is Birdman, but others never do as well as the next Marvel film).

I thought it was much more cynical than that. He cared deeply about the opinions of the critics and the general public. His main motivation in putting on the Carver play was not love of the craft, but a desire to buck the "lowbrow" reputation that stuck to him since his superhero days. In fact, he seemed to hate the process of directing theater, it stressed him out greatly with no payoff. His big freak-out at the theater critic wasn't really about "I don't care what you think," it was "What more do you want from me?!?"

The fact that his genuine suicide attempt garnered him positive reviews was an ironic ending reminiscent of "Taxi Driver" - the implication is that the entire society Keaton lives in is sick, and the only way to win their approval is to give in to the sickness. When he flies out the window, he's giving in to the fact that he IS Birdman, that's what people want from him, that's what he always will be.

Yup, totally. Your definition of sacrifice is 100% legit; I'm embarrassed it went over my head haha.

Speaking of tentpoles, how do you feel about the huge momentum blockbuster sci-fis have gained? Just over the last handful of years: Oblivion, Interstellar, Gravity, BR2049, Cloud Atlas, Valerian, Westworld, The Expanse... although not all of them are masterpieces, the clear sky-high ambition always makes me very happy to see. And then, of course, you have smaller excellent releases such as Ex Machina, Coherence, Upstream Color, Primer, etc.

I love this era we seem to be entering. Long may sci-fi reign (without being dumbed down to action schlock in space). I hope we get a lot more cyberpunk, personally, since that's actually a study on what our future may look like.

That's some pretty great taste user. May I ask how you feel about Villeneuve?

I think that's fair, as much as there was commentary on the artist there was a very real critique of audiences and what they flock to.

I guess it depends on how you look at the suicide attempt, but I'd say Emma's joyous expression is an indicator of an optimistic ending. Furthermore, if he ultimately did bow down to the critic, why distance himself from the patron mass by ostensibly committing suicide on-stage? Plus, think of the juxtaposition between his intent (basically saying "fuck this" to expectations from patrons) while also garnering rapturous approval because those very same patrons assumed—ignorantly—that it was an elaborate stunt to elevate the play.

The fact is, people see what they want to see, and that's why the artist should never bow to their whims. The artist is in constant turmoil to create beauty while the ignorant patron/consumer devours the product without truly savoring it, oblivious to the pain the artist endures in his quest to relay something deeply meaningful.

So yeah, given the context, I definitely think it's ultimately about not worrying about what the fickle, ignorant crowd flocks to and instead listening to yourself.

You've probably seen the pastas going around? I agree with almost all of them and especially this one:
>To accept Villeneuve as a quality director is to garb yourself in a coat of hot pockets and video games and then writh around on the ground in a supermarket while screaching and slapping yourself on the sides of your head.

Based. Thank you for confirming that he is vastly overrated and the ones fighting tooth and nail to defend him are utter plebs. I unironically agree with most of the pastas too, though I tend to avoid that one because its not exactly a legitimate film criticism. But I suppose it has its truth regardless

Honestly I've not seen many of those but I think Sci-fi is one of the most interesting genres as they can completely subvert other genres to explore humanity. I am all for that type of film where the audience can think and discuss ideas as opposed to a film that tells an audience everything.

Stop circlejerking, pair of faggots, nobody gives a shit about your hot edgy film school teenager opinions.