Effort for technical originality and a couple of strong performances aren't enough.

Rating: Null/10 (18 January 2015)

There are many ways to make your movie different from the others and one of them is by attempting an achievement in the technical department. The director of Birdman made the conscious choice to shoot his whole movie like it is one continuous long take (with an exception near the end).
Well, stunts like that sometimes work, sometimes don't, and in my opinion Birdman is closer to the latter.
It should be better, in my opinion, if it was filmed in a more traditional way. It might not had the spotlight as a technical achievement but I think it would be far more efficient and far more entertaining. The director tied his own hands. He deprived some pretty powerful creative tools, in an effort to be different.
The plot is OK. A delusional, washed-up Hollywood actor famous for playing a superhero (Birdman) in blockbuster movies decades earlier, tries his luck as a performer and a director on a Broadway theater. The other characters in the film his colleagues, his ex-wife, his daughter, are more like secondary characters who serve his story, without actually complete a sub-plot on their own.
Michael Keaton is OK too. I hear about an Oscar nomination (he got a Golden Globe already). Well, people have won Oscars for less.
The film is actual a dramedy, and there is a really funny scene outside of the theater (that the film mostly takes place), which might actually reward you if till that time you thought the film was boring.
So. Is it worth watching? Hm, yes. Why not.
Is it a "masterpiece" like I'm reading from some hasty or biased fans? Well No. Far from it. I use the "M"-word (as someone said it) for movies like "Amadeus (1984)" and above.
You probably won't remember "Birdman" next year.