I guess you call it "meta"

Rating: 8/10 (27 December 2014)

I'm not as hip as they come, but I guess you call Birdman a "meta" film. And that's why I really liked it. Watching actors portray actors can be wonderful. Very meta. A highlight of the film, for me, is when Edward Norton and Michael Keaton are playing two stage actors playing two roles of two characters a play and they're working out the scene. Amazing to see them peel the layers and dig deeper and get to the heart of it, find the raw truth, and so on.
The long steadicam takes are impressive. Zack Galifianakis, who I've been a fan of since he played his piano and delivered his churlish stand up comedy, was a real joy. Emma Thompson looks like a Disney character, her eyes are so big and her little nose so perfect. Oh and she's a terrific actor. They all are. Naomi Watts turns in a great performance as well. And the birdman thing, you know, awesome to hear that stereophonic voice booming in the protagonist's ears.
Meta, because this movie is about Michael Keaton, who played Batman once. Isn't it? A little bit? Is the script a love letter to him, is the film designed as his vehicle? I don't know for sure, and I'm too lazy to research it, but I think so. Besides, it works.
So all this said, I don't know why Birdman didn't completely blow me away. I was engrossed, I laughed a TON, and marveled at the multiverse it presented. It was both a visceral and intellectual enjoyment. So why isn't it one of my favorite movies? Too much hype? Too many expectations? Just a smidge too "artsy" for me? Or maybe it was because my wife wasn't that into it - it wasn't her thing. The magical realism was there for her, but, she's not an actor-type like me. So, I dunno.
The scene with him running through Time's Square is pretty great. Anyway, I'll shut up now.