Watching this year's Oscar winner Birdman was a waste of two hours of my precious life, but it wasn't a total waste because I was working out on the kettlebells, resistance bands, and free weights while trying to endure it.
About the only thing notable about this film is in the technique director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu used, and that is to use the camera in such a way that the film looks like it was shot in a single take. However, this technique is nothing new. Alfred Hitchcock employed it in 1948 in the far-superior Rope, which unlike Birdman took place in real time.
I guess the plot of this lousy picture is that a one-time successful actor tries to revive his career and his life by putting on a Broadway play or some damned thing. It's hard to make heads or tails out of it because the thing tries to go in all kinds of different directions and goes absolutely nowhere. You get a lesbian scene out of nowhere, you get an attempted rape onstage for no reason at all, and obscenities are spewed all over the place I suppose to try and pad this pic to 119 minutes.
Some have said this picture was created for art houses, where artsy-fartsy filmmakers get their masterpieces seen by artsy-fartsy film critics, who in turn try and con the general public into thinking these artsy-fartsy pictures are worth paying out major bucks to see. That's probably why Birdman won the Oscar, to try and get the public to see it and get it to make money.
What a waste of talented actors like Michael Keaton. What a waste of film.
Many people think that 1952's The Greatest Show on Earth, a film I have seen and have on DVD, is the worst ever to win Best Picture, but I am afraid Birdman deserves that distinction. There may be worse films that won Best Picture, for I haven't seen all of them, only most of them, but this is far worse than any of them I have seen so far. It isn't one of those movies that is so bad it's good. There is not one redeemable feature about it. It is pure torture.
One-half star out of five.