Exceptionally Bad

Rating: 1/10 (2 February 2015)

I saw this movie AFTER it received the nine Academy Award nominations, expecting, at minimum, a film marginally enjoyable. What I viewed was a 2 hour long abomination. This monstrosity was obviously written by individuals whose sole purpose to "push the buttons" of the voting Academy elites that select the most notable films for the best picture, actor, etc So, let us digest their decisions: 1. Best Picture. Really? What made this so wonderful? The supposed, uninterrupted sequence of events? A gimmick, where anyone viewing this tripe could tell where one scene actually ended when the actor(s) walked into a dark area. Very much a "one trick pony" of awfulness. The sad part is, this thing might actually win. Remember how "Shakespeare in Love" won out over "Saving Private Ryan"? 2. Best Actor. Michael Keaton. Yes; I must admit that Michael Keaton DOES deserve the nomination here. His performance is the only redeeming feature of this badness. 3. Best Supporting Actor: Edward Norton. Over the top, and a rather silly performance from an actor I actually admire. 4. Best Supporting Actress: Emma Stone. Why? This nomination makes no sense to me, because there are several in Hollywood who could have matched this performance; and, her minimal time on screen does not justify this! 5. Directing: Ah! The badness of this creation lends itself to why this nomination is unjustified. An example: When our main character is being followed by his alter ego. Notice that "the birdman" is actually shorter than the main character he represents! Bad! 6. Cinematography: Once again, why? The break movement from one scene to the next is easily spotted and forgettable from anyone paying attention. 7. Sound Editing: Perhaps the most hideous of all the nominations! I cannot tell you how irritating the "sound" in this movie was, mainly regarding the background noise of a street drummer banging away. Please, please do not put yourself through this! 8. Sound Mixing: Ditto! I actually developed a headache before the end of the film. 9. Writing Original Screenplay: Four individuals apparently conspired to create this "masterpiece". Their intentions were not towards any audience that would view it. They knew that it would appeal to the Academy elite, who would acclaim the film as a wonderful achievement, disregarding what, in truth, makes a great film. They would like to make us think their product is bold and original, but it is anything but. The characters are stereotypical; the plot is predictable and unoriginal (both my wife and I knew the ending half way through the film). Throw in some Psychobabble nonsense, and there you have it. No one will discuss this film a few years from now, and I believe anyone involved with its creation will deny their involvement. Come on! The "truth or dare" sequences alone should make anyone cringe, and fans of "The Walking Dead" know where these so-called writers originally got this idea. Insipid, and puerile! If you would really like to see a film based on a self-destructive character, go back in time and see "All That Jazz", starring Roy Scheider. Not my favorite, but memorable. Better yet, see Marlon Brando in "Burn!", or Peter Finch in "The Red Tent". Or, go back even further and enjoy Humphrey Bogart in "The Caine Mutiny". Now, that is acting with a memorable story!