Technically brilliant but lacking narrative.

Rating: 5/10 (12 April 2015)

I will begin with the positives: technically this film is brilliant, the visuals are enchanting and the acting is very strong. Iñárritu's choice of a higher frame rate, larger aspect ratio and very little colour grading combined with the 'tricked' single shot style make this film a masterpiece of cinematography - definitely a film to consider for film schools. These choices pull you into the story and give it a realism usually reserved for action movies - cleverly jarring with the Birdman 'references'. Furthermore the brittle and enigmatic relationships are brilliantly performed and worth watching.
However this film completely falls apart narratively. No characters are likable leaving the viewer uninterested in the plot - despite the gripping visuals. The superhero nature of Birdman is not explained and referenced far too weakly, barely figuring in the story. A few flashbacks jar with the story and the 'big reveal' doesn't carry any weight as I find myself simply uninterested in Keaton's character.
I found the set design and choreography of the camera and actors - changing 'scene' by transitioning around the set - intriguing, especially how the director handled complexity. However there were simply too many threads to the plot, none appropriately explored and too many 'messages' to really handle. Did it deserve the Oscars? Well for screenplay, absolutely not. There were moments of sparkling dialogue but the plot felt far too weak to deserve this Oscar. (Certain brilliant lines were lost by traditional Hollywood mumbling, a shame.) Best director? Again, the control of camera and actor - this choreography - was brilliant. But as a director of dialogue Iñárritu completely failed, many great lines were simply lost - again this was undeserved. Best motion picture? Whiplash and Interstellar to name but two, were more deserving. Best cinematography? It was stunning, full of intriguing artistic choices; but Nightcrawler sticks with me more, so no.
To summarise: 6/10. An interesting idea, technically well executed but let down by a weak narrative. For a truly great 'oner' try Russian Ark.