User reviews

Former star, Riggan Thomas, once famed for playing superhero Birdman, tries to get his career back on track, writing, starring and directing a Broadway play.

I can't lie, I quit when I first tried to watch it, I got twenty minutes in, and struggled, I found it a little too heavy, this time I stuck with it til the credits rolled.

I'm so glad I stuck with it this time round, it took a little time for me to get into it, initially I found it quite pretentious, but it does settle, and genuinely becomes quite engrossing. The turning point came for me, when Riggan receives a roasting from his daughter, it really helps explain where he's at.

Sublime cinematography, it's a gorgeous looking film, the camera work is impeccable, the film flows incredibly well. You also get to see a great deal of Edward Norton.

The cinematography is great, but even that is trumped by the acting, some superb performances. Art does seem to imitate life, it seemed relevant for Keaton, who of course played Batman, but definitely had a lean spell, his performance here was spellbinding.

Credit to Edward Norton, Emma Stone and Andrea Riseburgh, I thought the whole supporting cast were excellent.

There was a massive hype surrounding this film, I understand why it's loved, I can't say I deem it as a masterpiece, it's somehow too niche for that, it's definitely going to alienate some viewers, the mood was right for me tonight though, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

If you haven't seen it, or quit early as I did, I urge you to give it a chance.

8/10.

A washed-up ex-superhero actor is trying to make a mark on Broadway. Unfortunately, his new found want to make 'something serious', as opposed to superhero films, is challenged by the inability to shake his old persona.

It's a film about Hollywood and its many personalities - the drug-addicted, the mentally unwell, the sexual abusers, the egotistical, the scathing critics, the stars and the has-beens. It's not a topic I particularly care for and I didn't enjoy Tarantino's 'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood' or Alma Har'el/Shia Lebeouf's 'Honey Boy'.

Birdman, however, hypnotised me. You're greeted by snaking, daydream-like single shots that seem stretch forever, one scene flowing effortlessly into another through a combination of clever camera work, editing, and special effects. In short, it's a cinematographic dream. The high-conflict scenes, action, script, and larger than life characters glue your eyes to the screen in this rollercoaster that's effortless to watch. For a film about Hollywood, you'd expect good acting, and it certainly didn't disappoint, whether from Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, or the rest of the talented cast.

Birdman thrusts you into supernaturalism briefly, before thrusting you back to reality. It leaves it up to you how to interpret some key events and this creates division within the audience.

I understand why some dislike the film. I didn't find it meaningful, deep, or clear to what its message was. However, its punchy style was refreshingly new, worked perfectly, and is reason alone for cinephiles to delve into this engaging whirlwind of a film.

I have a tendency to check user reviews on IMDb before watching a film. I was surprised to see how divided people were for Birdman. Most of the reviews were either 9-10 stars or 1 star. This made me want to watch the film even more and by the time I finished watching it, my faith in people had decreased by a little bit.

Birdman is brilliant! This is not just an opinion, I wouldn't even consider it as one of my favourite films, I didn't even give 10 stars. When I say it is brilliant, I don't mean that I liked it too much, I mean that every aspect of the film is masterfully dealt with. Sublime acting, excellent cinematography, interesting and unconventional directing and a wonderfully original score. OK there wasn't a fast-paced plot with lots of plot twists, but not every movie has to be like this. One of the reviewers who gave one star complained about the plot and suggested to the readers to go watch a Kubrick film instead. Well, Kubrick himself made movies with minimal plot which were nevertheless proved to be masterpieces (2001: A space Odyssey, Eyes Wide Shut). He once said: "A film is (or should be) more like music than fiction". Films are supposed to make us think and feel, like music does. You can make a good song by adding story-like lyrics and you can make a good song by adding no lyrics at all. The same applies to movies. There are plot-driven masterpieces and there are no-plot- driven masterpieces. Birdman is one of the latter.

I don't want to spoil the film. I just want to say that I would highly recommend it for anyone, except people who only want to see pointless action and superhero films. Birdman will make you think, reflect on similar situations you might have experienced and discover the other side of actors and films. I can absolutely understand people not liking it. There is not a single film that appeals to everyone. What I cannot understand though is people calling it a bad movie.

BIRDMAN just keeps coming at you, time and again, from every imaginable angle, until the end credits, about an hour and 50 minutes in. Is it just me ....or are many reviewers reluctant to state the obvious? Michael Keaton as a down on his luck Ex-Superhero, desperately trying to prove his relevance in 2015, to the entire world, to his rather distant family, but, probably most of all, to himself. Oh yeah, and he talks to himself in a rather smooth, but hoarse and gravelly BATMAN...I mean BIRDMAN, Superhero voice, his last on screen portrayal of which was in 1992! (Yes, in BOTH of them)

So, just where do we draw the line as to what is fact and what is fiction? That is one of many recurring themes dealt with in BIRDMAN. I think it is the central one in the film.... Just where and when do we draw those critical dividing lines? Riggan Thompson is feeling the rapidly escalating pressure of a quickly approaching Broadway opening. It is a dilemma of his own device. His life is in shambles. He finds himself still pining for his ex, while attempting, rather ineptly and intermittently, to bond with his daughter. He has taken on overpowering debt to finance his Broadway play that, if successful, will provide him with the self-vindication he needs to put his life and career back on track. His problems seem insurmountable, or at least, he has convinced himself that they are!

The ensemble cast performance is deliciously superb. Zach Galifianakis as the steadfastly single-minded lawyer/best friend, who has to employ his myriad of abilities to hold the production together and keep it moving forward. Emma Stone, as Sam, the more often than not neglected as a child daughter, just out of Rehab, who seems to be on the road to stability in her life by serving as the reluctant gofer for her neophyte Broadway director/producer father. Naomi Watts, as Lesley, one of the play's stars, perhaps the star struck little girl trapped in the 30 something body of a struggling actor who is on the verge of her lifelong Broadway wish- fulfillment debut!

Edward Norton delivers an Oscar-caliber performance as the obsessed Method actor who's only real moments are the ones he spends on stage. And of course, Michael Keaton, in the title role, projecting a gigantic on screen presence as a man possessed, obsessed, intensely flawed, human and, ultimately, somewhat skewed by his own inner demons! Makes you wonder... Exactly where does Michael Keaton end and Riggan Thompson begin?

I would be derelict in my reviewer duties were I not to mention the effective and original use of the continuous, one-take technique employed in making BIRDMAN...It lends an extreme presence, intensity and intimacy to the overall quality and tone of the film which is quite unique. I'm sure the implementation of this style presented director Alejandro González Iñárritu with a formidable series of challenges, which he dealt with flawlessly. Gonzalez has directed some previously highly recognized films, such as Amorres Perros, 21 Grams, Babel and Biutiful. This highly thought provoking film guarantees that we will be seeing more of his work in the future.

10**********....... ENJOY! / DISFRUTELA!

With all due respect to Eastwood's American Sniper, the academy actually got it right with this pick for best picture. Every actor and actress in this given the space to breathe life into characters, every monologue and dialogue hits like a ton of bricks, every scene tries to get towards some fundamental truth of human nature only to have the next scene undermine that character and that purported truth. It's amazing that in the era of comic book universe movies that something like this can get made at all. An absolute must see before you die movie.

Despite the near-universal acclaim from critics, 'Birdman' very much divided audiences to a quite extreme degree. This division is very much understandable, 'Birdman' has a great many merits but not everything will work for everybody.

To me 'Birdman' was an excellent film. Maybe not quite as good as the hype suggests, but nowhere near deserving of the many 1/10 votes when its merits are a great many that some people seem to have not acknowledged. Although, from personal opinion, a little over-hyped, 'Birdman' ('Gone Girl', 'The Grand Budapest Hotel' and 'Whiplash' were also personal favourites, and 'Boyhood' was also better than given credit for considering the amount of hate it's garnered) was a 2014 highlight and a worthy Best Picture winner.

Not everything in 'Birdman' works. Some of the pace is a touch frenetic in parts of the second half and not everything feels quite as tied up as ought with things left a little loose.

However, 'Birdman' is an exceptionally well made film, with some of the best and cleverest cinematography of the year, some of the cinematography and editing is so dazzling it's enough to take the breath away. The special effects are also tremendous. Directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu (in the first of his deserved director wins, the best being 2015's 'The Revenant), 'Birdman' is one of the best directed films of 2014 too and shows Iñárritu's immense talent as a director, with breath-taking vision, sense of mood and the ability to make the story as gripping as possible.

The script is fun, thought-provoking and at times touchingly profound. The story mostly, while sometimes thin, is gripping and the characters engage.

Michael Keaton gives his best performance in years, an outstanding performance and perhaps a career-best. Edward Norton is similarly superb, his performance also ranking among his best. Emma Stones charms and delights too.

Overall, very much divisive, with some people adoring or admiring it and others hating it, personally was one of the people who loved it while acknowledging its imperfections. 9/10 Bethany Cox

I have to say I am shocked and how many bad reviews I have seen on this site for this movie. It seems to me that the majority of moviegoers who have chosen to review here are only capable of viewing a movie at face value.

This movie is clearly a satirical look at Hollywood and the constant need to remain relevant in the entertainment industry.

I will admit that the film does appear unnecessarily "artsy" in places, but some Hollywood actors love being unnecessarily artsy as they think it gives them depth.

That was the entire point of this film, for Hollywood to turn the camera on itself and expose all of it's own crap.

What I took from this film is what I have always felt about Hollywood, which is also what I love about it. Actors are inherently insecure, which is why they choose to be in an industry where there is a need for constant approval. The actors who are worth their salt risk everything to entertain...us. For that they will forever have my respect.

Definitely worth watching and worthy of it's Best Picture Oscar.

Whilst viewing 'Birdman', I spent the first hour of the film trying to decipher my emotions and opinions towards it, what I was watching was a weird, yet wonderful work of art. Truly though, 'Birdman' is a technical masterpiece. Michael Keaton has generally been undermined as an actor (despite a few notable roles as Batman or Beetlejuice) and has instead faced Hollywood picking more acclaimed and popular actors, 'Birdman' however might just be his ticket to an Oscar nomination, and possibly even a win, his performance is mesmerising. Alejandro González Iñárritu has created a truly spectacular character study that arguably features this year's strongest acting performances, alongside a well- executed script, booming soundtrack and a monumental achievement with cinematography from Emmanuel Lubezki in which he attempts a Hitchcockian approach, reminiscent of 'Rope', and displays the story through a seemingly single and unbroken sweeping shot. This is the true definition of a masterpiece.

A former Hollywood superstar (Michael Keaton) was famous as a film superhero over twenty years ago. He attempts a comeback to fame by writing, directing, and starring in a Broadway play.

Director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, shows the same adept work in "Birdman" as he did in his best works "Amores Perros" and "Babel". There is almost a playful way the camera moves through the thin zigzag halls of the backstage of the theatre, giving the viewers the experience of the cast and crew in their daily work.

Overall, there is a welcome liveliness in "Birdman", not only in the directing, but also in the acting. Keaton heads a solid cast that also includes Edward Norton (a standout), Emma Stone, Naomi Watts, and Zach Galifianakis.

The story is good but might have been better considering the other achievements in this film. It seems to be trying to grasp something that is profound but only partly hits the mark. Also, a few cheap and old tricks lower the overall effect. A sitcom gag of being "locked out" in a very inconvenient way is decades old. Also, the cheap thrill of a spontaneous "girl-on-girl" kissing scene may not be as old but it's just as stale.

"Birdman" is still an enjoyable experience especially considering that Keaton (who was a superstar in two "Batman" movies over twenty years ago) might possibly be playing himself. - dbamateurcritic.

I'll start by saying this movie is worth seeing at least once, at least to see what it is doing. It is shot much like Hitchcock's *Rope*, though not exactly. It isn't all one shot, but there are many shots that flow from scene to scene. The catch? Those scenes are not always chronologically continuous. This is a fact you very well might miss if you are distracted or have something inhibiting you (the theatre I watched it in first however many years ago had abysmal audio, so this was me the first time).

This may sound disorienting, but if you change the way you are viewing the movie, I think it will help. Don't look at it as a standard movie: instead, view it as a stage play whose stage is an entire neighborhood, mostly one building, and which was mostly captured as it was being performed by a cameraman. This means that the actors moving in and out of scene have the same flow that a stage play has, and this also explains the presence of the drummer that you randomly see in the background performing the soundtrack to the movie. (Yes, the soundtrack is mostly a drummer; it works really well somehow.)

There's only one tiny wrench in this, the movie has all sorts of elements that are generally assumed to be hallucinations or imaginings of the main character (Keaton). In different scenes where he is alone, we see him using various telekinetic powers. Occasionally, we actually see his younger self as Birdman (an action-movie role from his younger days) in person, although usually he just antagonizes him via voice over. Some of the few hard cuts in the movie that do not follow an actor from one room to another are used to establish that the telekinesis in the previous scene is probably just Keaton throwing stuff around the room in anger.

How to reconcile this is... well, difficult. It certainly plays with the tension between stage plays and movies. In neither is everything you see always taken literally, but in stage plays it is much more figurative (hence the bending of time and space from scene to scene). But on stage, you usually can't perform the kinds of special effects (characteristic of movies) that we are being asked not to take literally. (I'm trying to stay spoiler free, so I'll not say what I'm thinking right now.)

This is where we should look at the themes of the movie, because these formal elements in conflict that I mentioned mirror the thematic conflict between cinema and theatre. Long story short, the premise of the mov... (movie? . . . stageplay? . . . ) ...of the story is that Keaton is a has-been actor, known (very well known) for superhero movies he did ten or twenty years ago, all based around a character named Bat*coughs* I mean, Birdman.

Sound familiar? Okay, good. Well the inciting incident in the story is that he is trying to reclaim his career as an actor in general, and with it his artistic street-cred, so to speak, by writing (adapting), directing, and starring in a play. It is based on a novel by someone who encouraged him to be an actor when he was a child. Therefore, this isn't a move of cold calculation, trying to get famous again after years of not being as successful as he was as Birdman and therefore being artistically inauthentic, although he is certainly accused of this. But it is instead a very real attempt to reconnect with his younger, artistic self, before Birdman, which he sees as the inauthentic detour of his career and as not what he wants to be remembered for.

The conflict is, he seems to be finding that the film world doesn't translate to the stage world. He seems to be hitting the problem that there may not be such a thing as an "actor-in-general" but only two separate things called "stage-actor" and "screen-actor." On multiple occasions, this film criticizes the spectacles that saturate Hollywood and the celebrity culture it grows in the Petri dish of its award shows. Edward Norton plays his foil, someone else who finds himself on stage more than he does in his natural life, yet a stage insider, rather than a film one.

The film isn't all anti film culture, however. In many ways, film has its last laugh when we see that the kinds of things that make the theatre-world fall in love with you and fawn over your talent are superficial as well.

The formal conflict inherent in how the film is delivered therefore mirrors the thematic content that is being delivered, which is almost always the optimum result.

In other words, I have a lot of respect for this movie. I rate it 9 stars because that is how I say I think everyone should give it a fair chance.

It's chaotic and loses focus now and again, but it is ambitious with some of the best acting you will see in any movie this year. It is witty and self aware and there are many who simply won't "get it". If your tastes lean more to the obvious or straight forward, this is not the movie for you. If you like imaginative, challenging, and visually stunning films that deal with ego, passion, love, weakness, insecurity and redemption, this is worth your time.

Unfortunately some subplots are completely forgotten and character arcs begun but not finished, but there is so much rewarding here to be found these are mostly forgiven shortcomings. The editing and scene structure plays like a stream of consciousness, but the consciousness of a very neurotic person. And while there are several standout performances in a uniformly excellent cast, Keaton is the the focus and he is amazing. He runs the gauntlet of neurosis and desperation and pulls it off with an amazing balancing act between insanity and relatability. Perhaps not the best film of the year, but a very memorable one.

An excellent piece. The level of emotion portrayed and the way it was filmed, it is a memorable film that made the viewer feel so many emotions at once. The idea of a washed up actor and his story isn't new, but the execution of this film was.

Michael Keaton and Edward Norton are terrific. They are wonderful actors in nearly every sense of the word. I was engaged most of the way, but then the flying sequences. He is indeed a broken man. He is probably schizophrenic, listening to himself discuss his failures through the persona of the character he used to play. Enough has been written about this movie (it was the darling of the Oscars) for me to offer much. Nevertheless, I feel that we need to play fair with the audience. If this was a demonstration of what is wrong with Broadway and the Broadway crowd, let us know. There is a great scene where he confronts a powerful theatre critic who can make or break a show with a bad review (I never understood the power of these people) and chastises her for her vindictiveness and and arrogance in ruining peoples lives when she, herself, must not face the music. I'm sure her editors would disagree, but what he says is true. Unfortunately, as we roll to the end, we are made to make up our minds. I suppose it's OK not to be one with the character, but the ending is truly ambiguous, to a fault. Fantastic acting by the whole cast, yet it left me really cold at the end.

It is very rare that a movie completely leaves me in awe , this one certainly did.

If you are a film lover (such as myself) you MUST watch this movie. It is a movie masterfully shot , well acted, cleverly written. Which deals with complex themes such as love , the search for relevancy, artistic endeavour, criticism and much more .unlike many film this one doesn't shy away from its philosophy and symbolism instead it is a complex thoughtful piece of art that explores its themes completely.

This film is the definition of art . There is so much to appreciate about it on every single level of filmmaking. Masterpiece.

I absolutely loved the film. From the colors to the amazing camera work and the brilliant performances, it was a masterpiece. However i do believe that some people may find it tiring, nevertheless the movie has its twists and comic reliefs.

I don't know how to start a movie review off, seeing as I've never written one. I feel my meager rating out-of-ten is enough information to tell those interested what I think of a particular movie. Birdman, however, is the exception.

I understand I'm an absolute stranger. Who gives a damn about what I have to think? My only hope is that after reading one fan's fanatic praise for Birdman, you will go and see it. In the interest of not over-hyping this movie (which many will feel I'm about to do), I will say it's nothing short of utterly amazing. Every aspect of the film is masterfully crafted and executed. Emmanuel Lubezki's cinematography only exemplifies this. The brilliant choice of always having the camera rolling lets the viewer see what happens before and after any given event. This added information creates a realism unknown to nearly every other movie ever made. What better way to capture the raw emotion and awkward stumbling of an angry outburst at your father than to show the immediate reaction of the ranter following her outburst; you get to see the anger slowly fade from her face as the reality of what she said sets in. Details like this are so often lost and these often- lost, immersive subtleties are what make Birdman the gargantuan triumph it is. Not to mention some of the transitions and dolly shots are just damn impressive.

Even though many movies are yet to come out this pre-Oscar season, I feel it is safe to say no other casting ensemble will come close to the performances given in Birdman. Michael Keaton, Zach Galifianakis, Emma Stone, Ed Norton, Amy Ryan, and every single other actor in the production execute their roles with professionalism that most movies are lucky to see in just one of their actors. Each actor didn't wait for their time to shine to pull out the big guns; every moment of screen time was utilized to its full potential. There isn't a second where the audience's immersion is broken by an awkwardly delivered line or a slightly out-of-place facial expressions or emotion.

The only criticism I have about the film is that more aren't like it. A smart, satirical movie that is capable of criticizing without being hypocritical is unfortunately rare. However, it's rather nice to have movies like this stand out from the crowd instead of being the norm, because the relative quality only makes them that much better.

So, in short, I implore you. I beg you. If you step into a movie theater once this year, let it be to watch this film. It deserves your attention.

This movie really touch my soul in very different ways, I was laughing and crying at the same time when I was watching it. Alejandro's clean smooth directing really states a new canon in the way a movie is conducted, I was blown away with Michael Keaton's perfect performance and the rest of the cast did well around him. I had never seen this kind of genre called "Magical realism" as well as in this movie, it really submerge you inside the head of the main character and the brilliant drum-based score helps to explain the situation by the minute. I am very happy with the Oscars won by Alejandro (well deserved) especially because I am Mexican too. I know that this kind of movie is not for everyone, some people said that it is boring, pretentious, over-the- top, strange, difficult to understand, hideous. But let me tell you this movie is fascinating, touching, funny, sad, eloquent, fantastic and dramatic. I liked very much how it makes fun of big-budget summer-blockbusters hero-movies which easily Alejandro will have done if he had wanted but no, he preferred an artistic low budget movie that make you feel instead of make you eat popcorn.

I'm not exaggerating when I rate this movie a 10/10. From the first minute it's intriguing, you want to keep watching, not just for the impeccable performances, but for the incredible montage of scenes and the quality of the script. And best of all, as time goes on, the movie gets better in every way. Without a doubt, it is one of the best films in the history of cinema.

At this time, "Birdman" has a phenomenal IMDb score of 8.7 and has been talked about a lot in regards to the Oscars. Whether the film does get the nominations (particularly for Michael Keaton) is something we'll know in the next few weeks. As for me, however, I really do think the film is quite overrated--and the biggest reason is that so much of it I've seen before--such as in Fellini's "8 1/2" and a few films that have copied this, such as Woody Allen's "Stardust Memories". The movie, at least to crazed film buffs like me, just lacks the originality to be a great film and it seems overrated.

As for the film, it's about a down and out actor who USED to be a big star back when he starred in superhero movies (like Keaton in real life). Now, decades later, he's attempting a comeback-- starring and directing in a Broadway play. The film is, generally, a behind the scenes look at what it's like during a production. But, it is also punctuated with very strange, surreal fantasy scenes--VERY reminiscent of Marcello Mastroianni's little fantasies in "8 1/2". In fact, there are so many that it's difficult to know what REALLY is happening at times.

I loved parts of the film. Many little bits and pieces made me smile or connected with me. But, at the same time, I struggled with liking the film because so many of the characters were either completely unlikable or were underdeveloped. This, combined with the unevenness of the script and familiarity of the style, the film didn't do much for me. Did I enjoy seeing it? Not especially, but I am glad I did see it-- and assume folks not familiar with "8 1/2" would probably like the film much more than me.

Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton) is famous for his role as comic book superhero Birdman. He is trying to revive his waning career with his first Broadway show that he wrote and directing with his friend Jake (Zach Galifianakis). His daughter Sam (Emma Stone) works as his grumpy assistant. Lesley (Naomi Watts) acts in the play. When a light falls on the lead, Lesley suggests headliner Mike Shiner (Edward Norton). Mike is a method actor who gets on Riggan's nerves.

The concept of long continuous scenes is interesting. It adds to the level of difficulty. It is audacious and makes the audience sit up to pay attention. Although this movie does not take place in real time. It's not 2 hours of Riggan's life. There is one amazing scene with Keaton in his underwear. There is a daring in that it is outside in the real world. It adds a higher level of energy and that scene buzzes. The standout performance is Norton. He's got the most fun character. Everybody does a great job especially Galifianakis, Stone and of course Keaton.

That "Birdman" is a self-conscious movie, that thinks too high of itself and that doesn't care is obvious from the moment it starts. For sure, it looks beautiful, and the actors do an amazing job, but this doesn't change the fact that the movie is looking at itself the whole time and saying: I'm great.

The story doesn't really matter. Washed-up actor Riggan (a Michael Keaton that eats the screen and keeps the movie going even in its low points) decides to put a Broadway play where he will be director, actor and adapt an story by Raymond Carver. That's all an excuse for cool camera work, meta-dialogues, tongue-in-cheek situations and the same story of actor that wants to give himself a last chance, that left his family for his work, that is known by a blockbuster but not recognized by his acting... It has to be said that all the actors more than deliver, because behind Michael Keaton's center piece, Edward Norton, Emma Stone, Zach Galifianakis (more toned down than usually, which is an improvement) or Naomi Watts do an excellent job. Iñárritu's work with scenery is very good too, showy but assured.

But that the movie knows that it's playing with the convention doesn't save from itself patting its own back constantly, with even some unnecessary shots at blockbusters, plastic surgery, etc... You don't have to tell that you are great if you are really great.

Nonetheless, it is a movie really worth watching, even if it is just to see Michael Keaton's astonishing interpretation.

I think we've all been exceptionally good this year because Christmas came early with Alejandro González Iñárritu's masterful "Birdman (or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)," an experience that you won't soon forget. Debuting at Venice and Telluride Film Festivals, the film closed an already impeccable New York Film Festival on Saturday morning for press and industry colleagues. It's a film that resonates profoundly, and may just be the best film of 2014. From its pristine writing (by Iñárritu, Armando Bo, Nicolas Giacobone, and Alexander Dinelaris), to its carefully constructed direction and cinematography, to its genius casting and performances, "Birdman" is just a dream of a movie.

The movie tells the story of Riggan (Michael Keaton), a washed up actor who used to play a superhero icon called Birdman. In a valiant attempt to reclaim his career, he adapts, directs, and stars in a Broadway play. With problems from one of his very method actors (Edward Norton), assistant daughter (Emma Stone), emotional co-star (Naomi Watts), overly sexual girlfriend (Andrea Riseborough), flamboyant producer (Zach Galifanakis), and loving ex- wife (Amy Ryan), Riggan prepares for the breaking point of his career.

"Birdman" is so damn enjoyable and one of the most entertaining films in years. It charms not just because of its story, but because of the performances and slick way that co-writer/director Iñárritu plays with tone. It's downright hilarious in parts, probably the funniest film of the year, and then there's the dramatic edge that comes into play, and simply breaks your heart. Above all, Iñárritu's "Birdman" is a celebration of cinema. It's an audacious achievement that floors just about every aspect of film witnessed in 2014. Iñárritu already had vocal admirers from "Amores Perros," "Babel," and "Biutiful," but this is his most accessible. This will move him up in the ranks with the Scorsese's, Spielberg's, and Eastwood's. He familiarizes us with the stage and the theater. He makes the surroundings a very palpable character for us to know and enjoy.

At 63, Michael Keaton has been criminally underutilized in his career, despite some iconic performances. The nerd crowd will worship him as the ideal Bruce Wayne/Batman combo, while the same thick will remember his "Beetle Juice" fondly for all-time. Where Keaton was passed over was for his dramatic capabilities. I've beat the horse dead on mentioning his cancer-stricken father-to-be performance in "My Life" or his recovering alcoholic player in "Clean and Sober." In "Birdman," Keaton marries the two with an undeniable sensibility that stands as the actor's finest to date. It's such a studied turn, you feel the accuracy and precision in which he executes every move and mannerism of Riggan. It's the role that Keaton has been waiting decades for. It's the role of his career.

If we're talking about underutilized actors, then Edward Norton needs to be mentioned. Two brilliant performances under his belt, both Oscar-nominated ("Primal Fear" and "American History X") but both passed over for someone else, Norton is back and better than ever. A scene-stealing standout, Norton makes us realize how unspoken dialogue between characters can be just as humorous without the punchline. Emma Stone has finally arrived with "Birdman." Criminally misused and passed over by Hollywood for "bigger name" actresses, Stone finally shows the world what they've been missing. In one single scene, Stone revolutionizes and captures the essence of "Birdman" with a ferocity that you couldn't see from any other performer. She finds the heart and soul of Sam, laying her on the screen meticulously and transparent.

Though brief in screen time, the vivacious Naomi Watts, the sexy Andrea Riseborough, and the seasoned Amy Ryan make their marks exquisitely. Watts gets the most chuckles out of the ladies while Ryan has the greatest arc for us to explore. I hope and pray that Zach Galifianakis continues down a path in independent cinema. Fully realized and delivered, he layers the film with a beautiful sympathy, vocal and restrained, he finds the meaning of Riggan and presents him to us.

Emmanuel Lubezki. That is a sentence, statement, and just pure cinematic meaning nowadays. You can't watch a movie shot by the Academy Award winning Cinematographer and not find yourself more intimately contained and available to the realm of the movies. Just one year after stunning us with "Gravity," Lubezki allows the audience to be in the movie. We are present in every scene, every movement, and every thought that a person is having. We feel as though Riggan and the cast are interacting with us. When they're laughing, we're laughing, when they're crying, we're crying. He is an absolute magician.

This seems to be the year of the drums because Antonio Sanchez composes "Birdman" with a drum score that lays deep in my ear canals. Tapping your feet and bobbing your head, Sanchez elevates the film to new heights. Editors Douglas Prise and Stephen Mirrione may be the unsung heroes because in the film, we are nearly in one continuous take, which hardly ever gives up (at least to the untrained eye). In no way do I call myself someone who can spot a digital edit, but I spotted no more than a dozen cuts throughout. That is amazing. I'm sure there were dozens more, but you couldn't catch them.

"Birdman" is a masterpiece (there goes THAT word). At a time where movies feel like they have to choose to between comedy and tragedy, Iñárritu's beauty works on us from the inside-out. It's a human story, comedy, thriller, mystery, all rolled into one. All told by a master filmmaker and storytellers. The year's must-see experience.

Birdman at the same level as Citizen Kane? Hmmm Birdman is done by a modern day Robert Altman and it is a modern day Robert Altman film Altman was an experimental film maker. Sometimes in the same film some of the experiments worked. And sometimes they did not.

As with Altman's films, some people really like Birdman. And some do not.

So the real issue -- how did it win Best Picture????????????????? What the whole world keeps forgetting is that the Oscars were created as an "inside joke" where Hollywood could promote itself and congratulate itself and the rest of the world would watch because of the stars.

Boy do we love those stars.

More recently Hollywood has spawned a new tradition of awarding films which are teeter-tottering at the box office, knowing the Oscar will drive them into profit.

It is all about the money. Follow the money.