this worth watching?
>>66579220
No.
>>66579220
Yes.
Syndecho new york is better
>>66579220
yes, but don't expect it to be any different than Noises Off http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105017/
>>66579340
i have no real idea what to expect
how cucky is it?
>>66579358
cucky? i don't remember any significant black characters... there's this jew who's paying for the play but... then there's that lesbian scene where... nah i dunno
Yea its great. The music and visuals alone make it worthwhile. All of the characters are interesting and have good dialogue.
>middlebrow oscar trash
not really. It's worth watching for academic reasons--to see filmmakers try so hard to be insightful and creative, but result in a mess.
Edward Norton really made this movie worth watching
>>66579413
don't tell me naomi butts and emma stone are in the lesbian scene?
>>66579358
It's whiteness is it's strength.
>>66579522
ok i won't tell you
>>66579545
something being cucky doesn't necessarily mean it has black characters in cuckold scenes though
>>66579220
YES. aside from the 1 take meme, this is very much worth watching and literally nothing could EVER hope to beat it for best picture that year. not saying it was my favorite but it's that kind of movie that anyone involved in the voting process would vote for
some people don't get what the movie's about though, but hey, this is /tv/
No, 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 the year's worst releases.
It's better than Spotlight, that's for sure.
>>66579220
Yes it's fantastic and very unique with some great characters and music.
I think it's probably a lot better if you've been in theatre productions before though
>>66579700
so it's a movie for film makers
just like how Spotlight is a movie for journalists
true blue oscar bait
>>66579741
I said theatre production, not movie production you stupid dicksack
>>66579220
Yes it is. The time would be worth it.
Yes 7/10
better than The Revenant
>>66579700
>I think it's probably a lot better if you've been in theatre productions before though
This. I never understood why lots of people think you can't connect with the story because supposedly the woes of actors don't count. I'm no professional theatre actor but I've been in a few productions and watching this movie is a horrifying reminder of how fucking wretched it is to mount a play.
>>66579220
Exercise in long shots and overall cinematography than a a good story.
>>66579220
I think the general rule in these threads is that a 1/10 yes to no ratio means it's worth watching
Worst.Superhero.Movie.Ever.
>>66579220
No. It's not in theaters anymore.
>>66579220
Yes.
>>66579261
Very different films.
>>66579358
>cucky
Are you serious?
>>66579483
>middlebrow oscar trash
kek, get your head out of your ass, you special snowflake faggot.
>>66579513
indeed.
>>66579650
anything is better than spotlight, when you think about it.
>>66580522
debateable. they're both excellent films though.
>>66579633
>(Norton on the other had is a force of nature and puts everyone else in the cast to shame)
I think that was what the film was going for, and the reason why Norton disappears past the midway point.
>>66579220
It's my favorite movie. The first time I watched it I was blown away and rewatched it the next day. I think it's amazing.
That being said, people react differently to it, so you might watch it and think it's shit.
>>66579633
Please put the thesaurus down and cut the bullshit out. We need real criticism.
>>66579575
>could you tell me?
>>66579220
Anything with Michael Keaton is worth watching.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
>>66579220
I didn't think so.
Turned that shit off after about 15 mins.
it was huge on this board when it came out because it was anti cape shit. Then the critics loved and /tv/ went all contrarian
>>66579220
Yes. My favourite from that year, also my favourite in the past 5 years probably.
>>66579741
Saying Spotlight is a movie for journalists is like saying Whiplash is a movie for Jazz lovers. The characters are completely exaggerated so that your average fatmerican can watch without getting bored.
>>66584215
I like Keaton a lot, but I think he's noticeably better in a role that calls for more subtle acting and characterization. I much prefer him in Jackie Brown, for example, than Birdman which calls for him to be so melodramatic. I didn't like the movie's melodrama and yelling etc. generally either, but in particular Keaton's emotional parts weren't terribly effective.
>>66584523
okay, then no movie that won the Oscar is ever good, ever
>>66584842
are you saying the Michael Keaton from The Paper and The Dream Team is not good?
Yes
Don't Listen To People Who Live In Third World Shithole Places
>>66584338
When did the critics start hating Iñárritu with this much passion though? One can only wonder how madly it got that all of them forgot how nicely they reviewed his previou(s) film(s) and perspective. Previously, some people claimed that Birdman was his first great one, while others claimed he was still doing superbly good and others said that his previous films were great and this was nonsensical. Now it seems that everyone agrees that everything of his sucked big balls and he should die.I wish I could know how this trend started.
eh
>>66584977
haven't seen those 2bh, just from the movies I've seen, Keaton has done a better job with subtler characters.
