The plot of Birdman will flew over, most audience member's head, but the stunning visuals, great acting and clever dialogue, will kept some viewers, grounded.

Rating: 8/10 (2 February 2015)

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) is a really hard movie to define, but I'll do my best. Best way to describe it, would be: Judy Funnie. It's a very weird movie. It's a 'beat' generation film movie trying to survive, in a world of action special effects blockbusters and social media. The movie has everything that a beatnik would love. The rejection of received standards, innovations in style, use of illegal drugs, alternative sexualities, an interest in religion, a rejection of materialism, and explicit portrayals of the human condition under the background of cool Jazz. Directed, produce, and written by Alejandro González Iñárritu of 2006's Babel, fame. The movie tells the story of Riggan Thomas (Michael Keaton), has-been actor, trying to recapture fame by staging a new retelling of a classic Broadway dramatic play called "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love" by author Raymond Carver. For him to triumph, he has to overcome all of his challenges; like a method Broadway actor, Mike Shiner (Edward Norton) who takes his acting craft way too seriously, family issues with his daughter, Samantha (Emma Stone) and his own personal demons. Will Riggan have a hit on his hands or will the play bombed? Watch the movie to find out! Anyways, without spoiling the movie, too much. The movie concept isn't anything new as it tells the story of comeback talent trying to resurgence his career. We seem movies like this before, in films like 2010's Black Swan & 2008's the Wrestler. The different between those and this, is the humor. This movie was indeed funny. Much of the charm for the film, comes from that. If it didn't had, that, this movie might not had work. Michael Keaton is great in the lead film. You really see, how much risk, Riggan's entire future rests on the success of this play. You really see Keaton synonymous of Riggans, because how much it mirrors Michael Keaton's real life drama. Like Riggan, Keaton was known best for playing superheroes like the Batman in the 1990s. Ever since then, he hasn't reach the success that he had, with those films. Like how Birdman haunt Riggan's mind; Batman somewhat does the same to Keaton. I can't see, anybody else for this role. For a movie call the Birdman, the movie focus way too much on supporting characters, like Samantha's love/hate relationship with Mike Shiner. I can do without that as it hurts the film structure. Its felt directionless at parts. Don't get me wrong, all the supporting cast is great. I love how much, a dick that Mike Shiner could be and Edward Norton is great in that role; but I really came to see this movie for Michael Keaton's role. I wish, the movie focus all of it, on him. The movie is also worth noting for its non-stop editing so as the movie appear to be, a single continuous shot through the use of long takes. It was pretty cool to see that. Remind me of 1948's Rope. The movie in many ways, was made for a Broadway play. I felt that, this movie would had work better in a theater settling, than a film. I'll tell you why. They are two different forms of entertainment, and both communicate differently, so when you forge one into the other, something is going to get lost in the translation. The movie was way too wordy. I was wishing for a more 'show' don't tell approach to the film. It doesn't allow the visuals to sink in. Even if it did, most of the visuals were too surreal to dream-like to make any sense. What does a comet, have to do with Riggan's career? Its random juxtaposition of dissociated image cinematography was a bit much and felt like jargon. The film's theme of illusion and reality, doesn't blend, well. Its message seem to fall apart, more and more, when the movie reach its final climax. In other films, this might be alright, but for a movie that has a Broadway play, feel. It needs a little more structure. At less, the movie didn't go, overboard with its special effects. Coming in, I thought, this film was a hollow superhero film about the cartoon series from the 1960s when I first heard of the title, but I was deeply surprise, how challenging, its examination of artistic integrity was. The movie dealt with ignorance for most of its run time. It has a strong satirical assault on what viewers should think of what is art, and what is entertainment. 'Look at how their eyes light up. People, they love blood. They love action. Not this talky, depressing, philosophical bullsh*t.' quote Birdman. I guess you can say that the movie serves as a critique of modern entertainment. I'll give the movie, credit, for that. Is this a smart art house film or dada like film? Does it purposely tricks the audience into thinking it is very intellect, when it's not. Is the movie very shallow, despite its symbolism like the drummer and the title superhero? It's really up to you. The movie bad mouths 'critics', because it wants people to be, more critical thinkers and think for themselves, than allowing the general masses to make the decision for them. Don't get me wrong, I will still state my opinion, but I give the movie, credit for showing that what critics say, shouldn't stop you from seeing or not seeing a movie. Overall: I didn't think this film was that great of a film, but the movie will indeed, win a few Academy Awards, when the time comes. The movie was a fantastic piece of acting and cinematography that had me on the edge of my seat from start to finish. Story wise. I just wish, it was a little more tighten. It need a little more work. Still, worth checking out.