A lot of wasted potential...

Rating: 4/10 (13 February 2015)

I had semi-high hopes for Birdman when I initially saw the trailers. I didn't expect it to be a full blown comedy, drama, or action movie. I thought it might fall into the same sort of genre as "The Wrestler", a character driven film that has some elements of humor, maybe small action sequences, but primarily focus on the main character's current life. I also anticipated it having a dark sort of tone overall, like a dark comedy of sorts maybe like "Super". By the time I finally got to see it almost all of the award nominations it received were announced combined with the new ad campaign touting those nominations with all the critical praise. I tried to ignore most of that so I didn't let my expectations get too high, with all the recognition and praise it could only disappoint. It ended up succeeding at disappointing me so either I failed to ignore the praise or it was made for critics.
Although it doesn't ruin any plot points, the film was edited and shot as if it was one long continuous take. I found this out maybe 2-3 days before I saw the film and thought that was odd because I didn't see how that would fit the story or benefit it in any way. Hearing that made me real hesitant because if used poorly I thought it would damage the film as a whole instead of enhancing it. After finishing the film I realized I was right to be hesitant about that style. It hurt the film much more than I even thought possible. It made it seem cheap, corny, and gimmicky like it was pandering to critics instead of adding depth or perspective extra to the story. I typically enjoy long shots/takes in movies or TV shows. The major benefit to long tracking shots is they capture everything in real time and if used effectively it helps immerse you into the story as more of a passenger than just a bystander or spectator. I've seen it used effectively in almost every genre, be it dramas, comedies, or action. I believe I've only seen 2 films that used it the entire way through but I've seen it used many times for a 10-20 minute scene. In Birdman it was used all the way to the end and it wasn't used to convey real time or to highlight or enhance anything specifically. It was a little confusing because they used that style but also condensed at least 3-4 days into about 2 hours. I assume the purpose of that style being used was to convey the "theater" feel, in which everything is done live in one take without edits or retakes but if that was the intent then it could have been achieved differently. Perhaps using a few long takes instead of dragging it out the entire film. The transitions in scenes while the camera followed someone through hallways or staircases were completely unnecessary. They didn't contain one thing of substance in which made them necessary or important in telling the story, so they achieved only in continuing the "1 continuous take" gimmick. It ended up feeling forced as well as confusing and distracting which hurt the film as a whole by making it appear rushed and cheap.
The story was about what I anticipated with no real surprises, which wasn't a bad thing. It was decent and had potential to be really good, I thought. If it was edited like a normal movie it would have been better. I doubt they'd release a different cut of the film on Blu-Ray or DVD considering all the critical praise it received as it is, in addition to award nominations. The only way I'd be interested in seeing it again though would be if they released a version with clear editing to make it appear more like your average film. It could be edited into a few long takes, having each scene stand alone without the pointless transitions. Outside of that sort of cut though I have no desire to watch it again. I gave it 4 out of 10 stars on here because like I said the story had potential and delivered on some of that of potential although it could have been executed better. I give what I consider "average" movies 5 out 10 stars, I'd say this is slightly below average or just OK. What earned those 4 starts primarily were the performances by the cast. Everyone in the cast was excellent and they deserve the recognition and praise from fans and critics alike. Edward Norton, Naomi Watts, Andrea Riseborough, and Amy Ryan were all excellent in their roles. I don't typically care for either Zach Galifianakis or Emma Stone however they both executed their parts surprisingly well and showed me they are better performers than their typical big Hollywood roles would indicate. Michael Keaton was fantastic and delivered his best performance in decades. I don't think any other actor could have carried that role as well as he did. His performance was the main reason I wanted to see the movie in the first place and in that aspect he didn't disappoint. Hopefully this will opens doors for him to receive better roles moving forward because he hasn't had a chance to really carry a movie in decades, although he definitely has the talent to.
If this is a movie you've been looking forward to and have been anxious to see I'd suggest lowering your expectations before watching it and maybe you'll enjoy it more than I did. If you only want to see this because all of the critical praise and award nominations then I believe you're wasting your time and should just pass as it will most likely disappoint you. If you want to see great actors give great performances and see how poor editing can ruin the final product then I can't think of a better movie to watch.