This aged like shit

This aged like shit

Other urls found in this thread:

nationalreview.com/article/390592/circling-jerks-birdman-and-listen-philip-armond-white
nationalreview.com/article/396040/tenth-annual-better-list-armond-white
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Still too fresh

Wrong

I liked it.

it's been done 70 years ago

Capeshit is more prevalent than ever.

It sucked and no one cares about it anymore.

Why did people pretend it was good again?

i know nothing about this movie except that its about a formerly big actor so I assume that it might have had some appeal to people in the industry which would be reflected in shit like the academy awards where they award themselves, furthermore audiences are snivelling losers who get excited when they get to "see behind the curtain" because they think now they are essentially in the club. If a film shows that the people in films are just people like me, then I am like the people in films. Result "I loved this movie because it was made by my friends."

Birdman was good.

The types who complain about it only go to the movies to watch generic movies for escapism.

How could you NOT like Birdman?

the most common complaint I see is that it's "pretentious". I ask why, and they talk about the illusion of the single take.

I have no idea how people didn't like it.

aged better than the revenant at least

Most people always bring up "single shot gimmick" or "pretentious and thinks it's better than capeshit" but the as story of an actor trying to redeem himself it's well done.

>lol it's only one take the whole mubi
>lol it's so meta like did you know raisin man actually played a super hero back in the day?
>woah everyone it's so real, it's a movie about people and human relations
>lol drums
also this , hollywood loves itself and plebs are too stupid to understand the oscars are just an industry award so they jump on the bandwagon to feel superior in taste

Eh, not really. There's some magical realism elements to the story and the whole film is presented as one continuous shot. It was impressive enough to snag some awards and not a bad movie IMO, but once you've seen it twice you know the gimmick, and the re-watch value tanks a bit.

...

>brainlets who think they're smart

i found it distasteful because the shit on movie audiences as well as people who go to matinee nyc broadway shows.

and just like hollywood thinks we are a bunch of rubes he is back playing a supero bird. vulture.

Everything Inarritu makes is overrated pseud garbage

Short Cuts is the better Carver movie anyways

>aged

It started as shit. It is still shit. It will remain shit forever more.
How does 'age' factor into that?

It makes the capefags butthurt, so, it's good.

Also Ed Norton's character is revolting, 10/10.

>Overacted and overdirected, Mexican director Alejandro Innaritu’s Birdman presumes to comment on the excesses of show business yet is a tiresome example of those same excesses. It uses Michael Keaton as Riggan Thomson, the star of a Hollywood superhero blockbuster, who wants to do “serious” theater work by adapting a Raymond Carver short story. Riggan’s ambitions are beset by production problems from an insufferable cast to bad publicity, which only increase his suicidal anxiety.

>Innaritu, responsible for such failed-ambition films as Amores Perros, 21 Grams, and Babel, loads on as many bad ideas as he can come up with: a magical-realism approach that includes Riggan’s own superpowers (he levitates and speaks with his Hollywood Birdman character alter-ego); his juggling relations with several women (Naomi Watts, Andrea Riseborough, Amy Ryan) as well as a recovering junkie daughter (Emma Stone); an actor more vain than himself (Edward Norton); plus an annoying visual scheme of nonstop, circling camera movement. All this backstage, film-savvy hubris puts Birdman in the unenviable company of Bob Fosse’s egotistical All That Jazz, which ripped off Fellini’s masterwork 8½.

>But since Innaritu (one of Mexico’s “Three Amigos” along with fellow second-raters Alfonso Cuaron and Guillermo del Toro) is a practitioner of second-hand, art-movie concepts, Birdman isn’t merely set inside its hero’s head; it really takes place in Synecdoche, New York — the narcissistic fantasia that capsized Charlie Kaufman’s career by spinning a couple dozen neuroses too many. Inarritu’s facetious, half-camp approach to showbiz cynicism has Riggan clinging to his Birdman identity as a means of escape from his life’s mess — symbolized by absurdist moments like a half-naked footrace through Times Square amidst its mob of hateful, predatory celebrity-mongers, a scene designed to impress fans of Martin Scorsese’s misanthropic The King of Comedy. Maybe that’s why this disaster was chosen to close the New York Film Festival.

>Narcissism, sentimentality, paranoia, and stylistic braggadocio are an insufferable mix. Like Riggan, Innaritu wouldn’t know a serious idea from a facetious one. Inarritu seems not to know that Robert Altman’s extraordinary 1993 film Short Cuts was an unmatchable Carver adaptation and through its personalized account of the culture’s nihilism, became the definitive prophesy of America’s social fragmentation. Yet Innaritu dares show the temerity to evoke Altman’s valedictory A Prairie Home Companion (especially its troubled child observer, played by Lindsay Lohan) and then poorly emulates the sinuous — and playful — long-take camera moves of Altman’s Hollywood satire The Player.

>Birdman fails as satire when Inarritu resorts to CGI effects to convey Riggan’s hysteria (presumably to win over the Comic Con crowd). He’s insensitive to how technological F/X (including the praise of Internet trending that perplexes Riggan) are part of the dehumanization of contemporary art. Two conceited comments expose his cluelessness: When Riggan laments, “Did you know Farrah Fawcett died the same day as Michael Jackson?” and when a colleague’s passionate appeal is scoffed at as “That was Oprah, Hallmark, R. Kelly bad” — a combo proving Inarritu’s ignorance of Kelly’s depth and originality and genius — unpardonable for a movie obsessed with the idea of misunderstood genius.

>But would a genius use a second-rate percussive score to call attention to his borrowed Brechtian alienation effects? Or resort to extreme close-ups (like Stone’s bulging-eyed flirtation, or Keaton‘s haggard desperation) to emphasize moments of “sincerity”? In these scenes of over-obvious “truth-telling,” Inarritu achieves the crudeness of Sidney Lumet working at full Network cacophony.

>This film’s unrelenting smart-assed facileness comes from Inarritu’s pomposity. An insightful artist might take a bemused approach to showbiz, as in Peter Bogdanovich’s dazzling theatrical farce Noises Off or David Lynch’s surreal Mulholland Drive (as comic as it is terrifying) or, wittiest of all, Vincente Minnelli’s musical The Bandwagon. Inarritu’s lack of wit is exposed in scenes with a critic (Lindsay Duncan as New York Times scribe Tabitha Dickson) seen writing in a bar! Falsifying the reality that most critics kiss-up to stars; this snarky conceit is the emptiest attack on critics since Ratatouille — or TV’s Smash. So, of course, shill critics eat it up.

Why don't you go ahead and show his list of liked movies of that year.

>Hardest to stomach is Inarritu and cameraman Emmanuel Lubezki’s ever-circling, see-sawing visuals. Unlike Bogdanovich’s audaciously timed staging in Noises Off or the sensual, blissful, visionary camerawork of Mexico’s greatest director, Julian Hernandez, this style calls attention to itself, which precludes perception and feeling. A pause, or a cut, might provide intellectual rest and allow contemplation; Birdman’s antics just beg for applause. Banality, thy name is Inarritu.

>nationalreview.com/article/390592/circling-jerks-birdman-and-listen-philip-armond-white

nationalreview.com/article/396040/tenth-annual-better-list-armond-white

Yes! Yes! Watch Thor 3 instead

>300 over interstellar

The guys a contrarian. Funny, but can't take him seriously.

It was a weak film year.

Interstellar is trash pretending to be art
300 is well-made trash not pretending to be anything else

What the fuck am I reading? Is he the biggest smart-ass on Earth?