Yes, it's a WEIRD film. No, the trailers didn't prepare you for what the movie really was. Even the Fresh Air interview with Michael Keaton, I realize now, was deliberately vague about the film. But in the end, it was a trip to watch. I don't think I could make it through it again, but we enjoyed it and were glad we finally saw it. A lot of negative reviews say the film was Hollywood patting itself on its back; I vehemently disagree: the plot is very loose, and, yeah, Ed Norton's character's befriending Birdman's daughter was underdeveloped and perhaps unnecessary, but I think the film was meant more to be an experience to watch rather than something to make a point.

The seamless cinematography was unlike anything I've ever seen. So much so, in fact, that it almost made it difficult to watch, but not in a bad way; as I said, it's an experience. There's *actually* no break in the filming. It's like one continuous scene for two hours. Just pulling THAT off is impressive.

To me, the only takeaway was that the film was about a guy completely falling part. The film took place during the last (few?) days before he completely lost it... and that's the point of the ending, about which other reviews have complained. The ending doesn't mean anything by itself; it's the culmination of a washed up actor's long mental decline and a last-ditch effort to self-medicate by producing a play.

And that's all there is to it: it's an astonishingly well made film about a man haunted by his past. The only backstory is what you manage to piece together after seeing it. If you do watch it, get ready for two hours enduring not looking away from the screen and enjoy it for what it is.

I wrote a very long review for this movie, and after re-reading it realized that all I need to mention to recommend this movie is the cinematography. The entire movie is edited and filmed in such a way as to make it look like one long shot, and the effect is mesmerizing. Everything on top of that is just icing on the cake.

The appeal of this film comes from many directions. Are you a fan or interesting camera work that services the story? Watch Birdman. Are you interested in character studies that are relevant to our current entertainment media state? Watch Birdman. Are you interested in the mentality of acting both as an actor and as someone struggling with identity? Watch Birdman. It ultimately has a lot of things going for it when simply it’s about ego falling us in everything we do. The preformances are great and so is the score and cinematography. A lot of the people disliking the film think it’s overhyped or pretentious. Films are not pretentious, people are. And a lot of the negative reviews are people pretending to be above liking a hyped movie or just didn’t want to look at the technique in it. They are even represented in the film by a reviewer. So watch it.

Watching great actors play less great actors acting in Broadway! (Note: I don't actually know if what they do would be considered high or low quality Broadway acting, could be a different aesthetic I haven't had enough exposure to.) Definitely my favorite part, watching the transitions from backstage to onstage and seeing the (meta-acting?).

Having no obvious cuts throughout is AMAZING. I think partially because it makes the actor transitions between modes more of a cut unto itself. Really it's just cool, not an every movie thing but it works here.

Great film, perhaps best appreciated by those who make their bread and butter in creative industries. This interview with Iñárritu might shed light on some of the aspects people seem to find so confounding: http://www.filmcomment.com/blog/interview-alejandro-g-inarritu/

"I’m not diminishing the pain of the creative process, and the need to be loved and express yourself and be naked and all those things. But what I’m saying is that I knew if I took the suffering of these existential things seriously, I would be betraying the real nature of the pathetic side of it. There’s a very pathetic side of the ego needing to be recognized, and applauded and validated. There’s something that, if you detach yourself a little bit, is more funny than tragic. It’s both at the same time, but I knew that if I took this so seriously, it would be as pathetic as everything [else]. So I prefer to take it from the hilarious vision of the tragic reality of the complex mind of artists. It’s more truthful that way." -Alejandro G. Iñárritu

Just watched this for the 2nd time. It may take a while and/or the people who don't understand/get "it" may never come around, but I think this is a masterpiece. Original idea, smart, funny (especially if you are involved at all with theater, movies, show business, etc.) but touching as well. Just enough fantasy to be whimsical but not over the top, great acting/script/music, and well filmed with unique long atmospheric shots that weren't just thrown in to demonstrate the technical difficulty in doing them but were mainly used to echo a scene - as in you only have 1 take during a live play and/or in your life (vs. mult takes & camera angles to get the "right" edited scene in a typical movie). There are many movies out there...I think this is one of the more enjoyable & unique pieces of art I've been able to witness in some time.

I am baffled that anyone could have given this less than five stars. Every minute of this movie reeks with genius. Edward Norton and Naomi Watts are always brilliant, so it's not a surprise that they are brilliant here, but it is always mesmerizing to see them do what they do. Iñárritu is so unbelievably good. How can he write New York theater people so perfectly? The world he captures is so specific, and even though it's still going strong it still seems at risk somehow.

The lighting, the drums, the camerawork, Lindsay Duncan as the perfect theater critic, I don't know, man. If you don't like this I don't think you like movies.