So-so Angst-driven film with decent acting but failed plot

Rating: 5/10 (25 December 2015)

Birdman reminds me so much of other supposedly great artistic movies that won Best Picture Oscars, yet were never embraced by fans. For example, Big Boys Don't Cry was touted by critics as so great, yet I think it stunk. I guess I'm not artistic enough to appreciate the depth of the director's masterpiece. Or Leaving Las Vegas, where Cage won an Oscar - another boring tedious film.
Enter Birdman. The story revolves around an aging Hollywood movie actor Riggan (Michael Keaton) who has tired of playing a superhero Birdman (obvious play on the Batman series) and decides to direct and star in a play on Broadway to prove that he really can act, not just put on a Birdman suit. The cast of characters is interesting - his daughter played by Emma Stone. His agent/confidant/lawyer played by ZachG. But his biggest friend/foe is Edward Norton, who plays this supposedly great actor who decides to step in and save the day when the play is in its final preparation and the lead actor is discovered to be talentless.
Michael Keaton delivers, kind of like Mickey Rourke did in The Wrestler. He delivers great emotion and depth of character. He deserved best acting awards/nominations. Norton delivered an obnoxious spoiled brat who was used to getting what he wanted, in all aspects of his life. Overall, strong acting from the leads.
But the story inevitably fails because it leaned too heavily on sex, drugs, and meaningless banter and open-ended sub-plots that just dragged it down. At one point, it reminded me of the disgusting Wolf of Wall Street with pointless sexual innuendos. I guess the director was trying to show how many different ways Keaton's character was being abused and pulled. But it left me exasperated when I wanted to get to the point and see if he could succeed or not on Broadway.
After preparing for weeks, he is ready of the real opening night. The famous ending leaves me scratching my head. I googled explanations of the ending, and found one that said there were three different interpretations I could have. That's when I decided this movie was 5/10. If I can "imagine" three different meanings of the ending, the movie failed. This was just too much of an artistic leap for me. I saw a movie, The Enemy, where there was a confusing ending, but then I read the explanation, and there was ONE clear explanation that clarified the whole movie. I said - Oh - that's cool! I get it.
Not with Birdman. For me, it was great acting from mostly Keaton, a tiring screenplay, and a confusing ending. That is my take, but you be the judge. Enjoy your flight if you so choose.