What is the Any Forums consensus about Birdman (2014)?

What is the Any Forums consensus about Birdman (2014)?

Attached: 91S9c2mkFHL._SL1500_.jpg (1039x1500, 200.72K)

Opinion A: It's pretentious trash, dishonest filnmaking
Opinion B: It was bretty gud.

it's insanely pretentious and i enjoyed it greatly

Entertaining but pretty pretentious and dishonest.
Inarritu is a hack.

Honestly, the only part I thought was trashy was when Andrea Rose rough and that other chick started making out. Had fuck all to do with the film imo

Also the montages were a little pretentious. But the film was good, it's message (if you can call it that) was good, and although it lambasts Capecinema it obviously understood their appeal.
>Look at their [the audience's] sparkling eyes, they love this shit
Yes, yes I did.

interesting film making technique using one camera the whole time. Likely a clever allegory that a demon is watching and altering his life. No one caught on to this for some reason. Eventually he's possessed by the demon and kills himself at the end.
pretentious but kind of in a good way.

If Michael keaton wasn't batman no one would of gave a shit

emma stone was pretty good in it. honestly the film-making was pretty meh. obvious cuts everywhere and not particularly visually interesting aside from some of the hallucinations. easily a 8/10 thanks to the acting and cast

The only good best picture winner that decade and its actually funny

That sequence where it goed full capeshit/transformers hits the point perfectly, love when he says people love that shit, not this depressing talky philosophical bullshit. I remember watching it many years back and feeling personally attacked
Like the movie is pretentious but it actually fits in. Like the edward norton character

Inarritu is a hack, I agree, but how is it dishonest

Exquisite kino. Even if it's pretentious and sappy, the directing/kinomatography itself makes it worth seeing. Not to mention the great soundtrack.

Literally the entire point. If Riggan Thompson wasn't Birdman no one would have given a shit about his play.

I like it.

Terrible movie. Both Keaton and Norton were horrible int it and as was innaritu. It's basically the same as Matrix: ressurections. A meta comment about an industry nobody gives a shit about.

>obvious cuts everywhere
I mean... there were time skips so it's not like they were trying to actually convince you it was one take. just an effect

Norton wasn't acting.

>an industry nobody gives a shit about
But the film knows this... Keaton's character gained far more notoriety from having gone viral on YouTube than from any of his efforts at high art.

Its like the film directly addresses people's criticisms and yet it goes over most of their heads. Insanely good filter film desu

i'm aware of this but it takes you out of the moment alot. during the night outdoor scene they put in a very obvious wipe, as if to say 'GUYS LOOK WE DID A CUT! OMG YOU NOTICED IT SO SMART'.

that's my issue with 'one-shot' movies. it's always way too obvious in a way designed to make you notice

it's becoming aware, unplug it

It was a bretty good show.

Attached: 1643668592718.jpg (170x170, 9.27K)

2014 already ? Holy shit

Keep calling shitty content 'Filter' I will have your head on the next stake.

Another self serving dick sucking flick about show business and people who take playing make believe too seriously that nobody will ever be able to relate to WAAAAAHHHH IM GETTING PAID MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO PRETEND TO BE SOMEONE ELSE BUT WHAT ABOUT MY SOUL WHY IS LIFE SO HARD.

You're upset over nothing

I'd rather watch bluntman

I don't understand. Do you people who complain about the "one-take" effect not notice regular scene transitions in other films? Nothing we're seeing is real..

Not an argument and it sounds like you unironically have been filtered. The films not that hard user

pretentious not quite trash, maybe average
good for one viewing maybe 7/10