I really cannot understand why so many people hate this movie. It's unique, interesting, well-written, a true masterpiece in my eyes. I enjoyed every minute of it. I know everyone's taste differs, but I'd rate this move among the elites, would give at least a 8,4 rating. Do people just rate it down because it won Best picture and not freaking Boyhood or The imitation game?
shareYou're so correct. The film has so many enjoyable elements, for people who can appreciate such things, but here's the problem, most people, the masses, will not find many of those elements.
I've heard from many friends, acquaintances, etc. how they did not enjoy the film, but most of the time it sounded like they really couldn't follow it enough to be appreciated. They either thought it was too weird, too fast or a bunch of other 'excuses' why they didn't enjoy it. I felt almost every reason fell back on simply not understanding what was going on. They couldn't differentiate between the reality and Riggan's more imaginary scenes and most of the time the splicing of those together. Basically they didn't have the film smarts to piece all together and that pisses people off and they blame the film instead of blaming them self. Some people may claim they understood everything in the film and still did not enjoy it, but if they truly did UNDERSTAND everything it seems quite doubtful someone couldn't walk away with a positive attitude towards the film.
For me, the repartee between the actors was one of my favorite parts. Just extremely witty and wonderful to watch. Sure the minimal amount of cuts was great too. For anyone to think the director's intent was to make the audience think there were no cuts is ridiculous, but just merely to attempt the film to appear that way, which was done to perfection. The story in a story while the film was about a play about a film star was an aspect I truly respected being a big fan of Broadway. Peering in on the reviewer's point of view certainly felt like a good rub on Ben Brantley, which I thoroughly enjoyed. Ed Norton's performance was a tour de force and if it wasn't for another tour de force Ed would have found Oscar while performing for Tony.
Just a great film which will be remembered throughout the years.
This is one of the best, most thoughtful comments I've ever read on IMDb. Really. Thank you for writing this.
"Pretentious" movies are the best.
I LOVE YOUR MOVIE. Whoever this is. Birdman is a masterpiece of fantasy and psychological exploration. LOVED the ending. It completely surprised and moved me to tears. Birdman explores what hides in all of us. That we all want to be heroes in some way and MEAN something to the people and friends around us. 10 stars from me and beautifully made. THANK YOU!
sharethe repartee between the actors was one of my favorite parts.
There is nothing worse than an Altman movie. No main actors, everyone "improvising" -- i.e. saying random things. Never met an Altman movie I liked. Closest was M.A.S.H., which I gave 3* (out of 4*).
Skinny Zach was ok
The same thing can anyone say for any movie.
The "you dont got it" argument is stupid....no but's, or if's, it's an utter stupid thing to say for these kind of movies.....actually its not an argument to start with...but anyway.
Pseudo-cultural idiots use the "you dont got it", and throw terms like "allegories", "symbolism", "analogies", to excuse and justify themselves for liking these idiotic movies and to cock about
-"I am smart, you are dumb and you didnt got it".... well no, just no, its the other way around.
That you interpret a pointless movie and/or scenes as you see fit, and/or different from others, that doesnt makes a movie "good", on the contrary it makes it bad, really bad.
Cause the camera stayed focused on a donkeys bottom for 30 mins, that doesnt makes it "art" or have any "allegory", all that this shows is that the viewer has some sort of brain damage for liking it, cause the truth is that
A:the writer and the director didnt know were the hell they wanted to go with it and they just let some/most things open to the audience to interpret, through their imagination, memories etc etc.
B: That the director makes money effortless without even the need to use a proper script, not even a second camera...
C:That if you have the cridicks with you, no matter how fked up and stupid a movie is, you'll get an award.
" A:the writer and the director didnt know were the hell they wanted to go with it and they just let some/most things open to the audience to interpret, through their imagination, memories etc etc.
B: That the director makes money effortless without even the need to use a proper script, not even a second camera...
C:That if you have the cridicks with you, no matter how fked up and stupid a movie is, you'll get an award. "
Jw, you're applying this to birdman?
Jw, you're applying this to birdman?
"The same thing can anyone say for any movie"
You could have been making a general point about the argument of "you just didn't understand it" being weak, which I agree with. But your tirade at the end.. WHAT? You think the director had no script, and didn't know what he was doing, making something ambiguous for the hell of it? Sorry, but you just didn't understand it.
Sure, of course I didn't... cause my IQ is greater than 0.
You must have below 0 IQ to understand this movie, let alone make the retarded claim "I got it, and you didnt"...
Same BS can be said even for Porn movies... These stupid people watch porn movies for the sex scenes...they just dont get the plot and they stick in the sex scenes...
No matter what you'll say, I'll just be negative and say "No, Sorry, you just didn't understand it." ....is that simple and i can pick any utter dumb movie, Avengers? Iron Man 3? Pacific Rim? Her? Gravity? Interstellar? The Amazing Spiderman? you name it.
btw... "You" that you claim that you "got" the movie, I bet you that you cant even start explaining the plot, let alone the idiotic claim "deeper meaning".
If you are looking for where Birdman succeeeds at the intersection of history, literature, philosophy, and psychology, then look no further.... Enjoy!:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2562232/board/thread/241217984?p=2&d=242230864#242230864
So let me get this straight...
Your argument is:
That you have to read a library to "get" the "deeper meaning" of birdman? Sorry but NO.
Even if that was true, that would only make birdman an even bigger fail... Let alone that this is just your opinion not a fact, meaning that your argument is even more invalid.
btw... With the same argument I can say to a woman that doesnt like porn movies, that she havent had enough orgies in her life to appreciate a porn movie... right?
oooor
Anyone can argue that Transformers/Pacific Rim/IronMan are not superdumb movies, "you just didnt get them" cause you havent read a lot of comic books...
Sooo... sorry but NO, your argument is plain and simple BS.
Idiotic directors like Inarritu and Cuaron, apart from being hyped in USA cause they arent from USA and the idiotic cridicks love that... We know that they make movies painfully dead-slow and open to every and any interpretation that anyone can pull out of his bottom... and cause of that all the brain-dead pseudo-cultural idiots jump-on and use the BS "you dont got it"...
This reminds me the guy that was arguing and was trying to prove that "The Avengers" is an intelligent movie... whats next? arguing if the earth is a sphere and not flat? if its night or day?...
There are plenty of people who understood what I wrote about in my post without ever having to think it through. That's why the film won critical praise, the Academy Award, and lots of fans. I am simply one of the few on imdb willing to put the effort into articulating those thoughts.
Manwhile, I am still willing to entertain thoughts that directly address my post concerning the following ideas I set forth:
The Birdman character as the Second Man (the inner voice always keeping you down)
Riggan looking for discernment in art
Riggan lashing out as we see in Freud's Death Instinct. (the world is painful, so the subject reacts in destructiveness.)
Riggan having a Negative Capability, (the facility to go beyond the realm of normal human limitations.)
There, I broke it down for you. Simple enough. If you have a specific problem with any of that analysis on how it does not apply to the movie, then please share it.
Yeah man, still my points above stay true and valid, and you still havent explained how all these >>
The Birdman character as the Second Man (the inner voice always keeping you down)(....that a toddler can understand, so sorry no "deeper" meaning there, nor a library is needed...) ....makes this movie great?
Riggan looking for discernment in art
Riggan lashing out as we see in Freud's Death Instinct. (the world is painful, so the subject reacts in destructiveness.)
Riggan having a Negative Capability, (the facility to go beyond the realm of normal human limitations.)
you still havent explained how all these ....makes this movie great?
My claim looks thin? really? here how it goes....
You came back with 0 answers to everything that I've said, you haven't even done an argument for the sake of arguing and you say that my claims look thin? wow man.
I've debunked every single word that you've said and you came back with this?
bringing together great ideas from differentt disciplines into a single story would be a damn good startPlease tell me that you dont consider this as an argument.
How about a list of movies you think are "art". So you can show how stupid people are just becasue they liked something you did not like.
shareHow about a list of movies you think are "art". So you can show how stupid people are just becasue they liked something you did not like.
I never said Birdman was a great film. I reserve the word 'great' for less than about twenty films in the histroy of cinema.
But I do say that showing people how these different disciplines intersect makes for a terrific film. And it is not just my opinion. The proof is on the screen, unless you'd like to show how I've gone wrong. But you still cannot refute any of my points because they are ironclad. Just like your head.
It takes three thigns to make any work of art great, the three ways life manifests itelf on Earth: the physical, the intellectual, and the emotional. Because Birdman is not completely emotionally satisfying to me, I do not call it great, but it is terrific. The scene in which Emma Stone tears into him was astounding, and it set the tone for the rest of the movie. I felt the viciousness of her attack and how it sent Michael Keaton into a daze, and how desperate he became. Thet we could see her smile at the end is a triumph.
I do wish the dialogue was better, in general.
But you still cannot refute any of my points because they are ironclad. Just like your head.
Just like your head.
You have done no such thing. You have not given reasons against the Second Man character, the Freudian Death Instinct, nor Keats' Negative Capability as being strong elements in this film.
shareI should give reasons? Why would I? I didnt claimed that I didnt got it and I will ask for a billionth time, whats to not get?
shareYour attempts to sound like an intellectual are undermined by your lack of depth. The fact the film dwells on Freud, a fraud, rung no alarm bells?
shareOK I will reply like you did but in an even more simple way cause obviously by your post you showed to everyone that you are very intellectual.
What you are saying is BS. full-stop.
Happy? Am I intellectual enough for you now?
The fact the film dwells on Freud, a fraud, rung no alarm bells?Anything to back up this? Not with BS theories or what YOU think, something that you can touch? that its in the movie and that people could actually have missed it?
Yes, how dare a director ask you to use your imagination, to think about the characters, and developing relationships, and human frailty? Go back to your beloved super hero movies, with lots of explosions and fights and spandex costumes and CGI. Your arrogance is unbelievable, coming from someone obsessed with movies based on comic book fantasies. You claim to have an IQ above zero. I doubt it.
We provide ... Leverage.
WOW, "ICECHARON"!
I'm only on your 3rd Comment and, because I will Ignore the rest of your comments, I obviously must remind you that 85% of each of your Comments is you spouting off with haughty sarcasm that: 1) "MY Opinion is Superior to Yours!"; and 2) "This makes ME Superior to you!"
How completely Typical & Predictable of you - most movies has someone exactly like you, who seems to take it personally when anyone disagrees even with what is Subjective? As if an Opinion could be Correct or Incorrect? Have you no self-awareness at all? Or do you intend to sound like the typical 'Ultra-Angry Know It All'?
* YAWN *
Another forum shrink... Do you have a valid argument? No? Piss off then.
shareJesus, you're so pretentious for someone who cant even form proper sentences.
shareI speak 4 languages and english isnt even my 2nd best language, sorry that i dont nitpick my post in a random forum that no one gives a fk.
Nice argument btw...
Besides being a complete and utter idiot you also come off as a complete and utter arse! It's because of people like you that we can't have nice things.Please go back to your cave and take your kind with you.
shareNo you got it wrong, it's because of brainless delusional fks like you that we get pseudo-cultural retarded movies like this one and on the top of that you award them.
You're lucky you can hide behind a screen you little *beep*
shareahahah yea sure... I like how you are so sure about it hhahahah
Also... Nice argument by the way ahahha your brain obviously is still on a caveman level...ahahahahah
Ah yes and I am not hiding you dumb fk, if you pay the tickets and expenses I will come to your house.
Why should I pay for a dirtbag like you?Arguments are wasted on piss-heads like you.Your pronunciation is that of a fifth grader so I kinda feel sorry for you(don't usually beat up retarded kids) so I'll let you go back to your mother's basement where it's nice and safe.
shareYeah yeah.... now you chicken out LOL figures... suit yourself cowered.
Also you may want to work on your delusions, cause believing and taking as facts the sh!t that you pull out of your bottom is the definition of mentality.
...and obviously your mental issues is the cause of liking this piece of crap and having nothing to present as valid argument to support it.
All you did was threats and insults to support your dumb piece of sh!t of a movie... who is the kid again? hahahahha idiot.
So you coward-nutcase just visit a doc to help you out and/or if you are underage just tell your parents about your issues.
Now fk off.
Only chicken here with a with a big loose mouth is you!You started with insults and personal attacks against people who like something you don't so better get your head out of your ass to see the sunshine buddy.Even now you keep insulting me without knowing who I am which speaks oceans of immaturity and pettiness.I am a 32 year old man with a decent amount of education a wife and a kid on the way and both my parents passed on in my teens so no I am no kid and no delusional idiot or coward-nutcase.If you leave the house with that mouth on you every day I really wish you luck to just get home with a black eye and nothing worse.I am done replying to your petty immature ass.Grow up and learn how to speak to people and maybe you'll see that they will talk back differently as well.You speak of maturity,arguments and mentality or judgement yet you prove yourself incompetent at best in all of these things by just looking to pick fights.You just went on my ignore list so don't bother replying cause we're done here!
shareYeah yeah what-fking-ever...
Having in mind your post history... A question tho:
Is all these about yourself are real or you pulled them out of your delusions bottom again?
Cause it sounds damn right to be delusions.
No matter how you look at it, you are a nutcase with delusions, Period.
Cause you either say the truth and you are a 32 year old delusional nutcase-idiot that even tho that he has kid, wife and education has nothing better to do than pulling things out of his bottom and bullying people online....
or you are just a full-retarded delusional loser that goes online and lies about everything and pulls things out of his delusional bottom and takes them as facts.
Now... fk off and go seek some help.
I think I can technically vouch for the writing/directing part about them not knowing where they want to go, the reason being is that I'm a published author and I'm currently working on a movie. Most of the time when I write a movie, the only thing I plan is the characters, and then I just go with the flow. I write whatever the hell I want to write. Most other writers (that I know) do this, too. I personally hate using an outline because if I come up with a good scene or piece of dialogue that fits perfectly on the spot, but I created a story outline already, it's actually pretty hard finding a place for it. Usually I tend to write my way towards the scene, then I take out all the unimportant stuff once it's all finished.
I'm pretty sure that's how the director/writer went through with it.
If I could give your post a thumbs up, I would. I think IMDB should add it as a feature.
shareSo, by your A) claim, it can't be good or art or good art if it isn't straight forward, that doesn't make sense. Also B) claiming that you need multiple cameras and production value, otherwise how can it be worth looking at or good, is even less intelligent.
And right now I'm not discussing the movie as I'm talking about your general claims on what a good movie needs.
You should probably just stick to one point:
'It wasn't entertaining for me as it was poetic, which is not my cup of tea.'
When you stop pulling things out of your bottom and/or saying things that I have never said, and/or stop having delusions, we can talk, until then, I have no interest talking to you.
shareI'm curious, do you like any movie or just hate on everything?
share-First thing first, I do NOT hate, and especially in the way that the word "hate" is used widely in these forums.
-Second, I dont like intelligent offending movies/dumb movies and the pseudo-cultural movies, like birdman, gravity, etc.
-Third, I do not like or dislike movies according to the studio/developer and/or the director.
-Fourth I like a lot of movies, here are some titles that I've rated with 8+
Pink Panther (the original ones)
Les Miserables (1998)
Fearless
Citizen X
Hero
The Martian
The Grand Budapest Hotel (pretty much everything from Wes Anderson)
Goodfellas
Bourne trilogy
Matrix
The Fifth Element
The Last of the Mohicans
The Count of Monte Cristo
Dark City
13 Assassins
Man with No Name (trilogy)
Apocalypto
As good as it gets
Snatch
RocknRolla
Lockstock
Dallas Buyers Club
...and cause CBM its a trend my favs are (not compared to the source material, I dont read comic books)
V for Vendetta
Watchmen (Ultimate Cut)
300
Oldeuboi (2003)
Blade 1-2
i have not seen this movie
But i totally disagree with one of your comments.....If the audience do not understand the plot, its ALWAYS the mistake of the movie.....ALWAYS....because the director didn't know how to tell a story properly.....thats simple plain deficiency
some may say, the director thought high of the audience....But my opinion is .....irrespective of what anyone says, audience is the one who has last say
Some of you might understand the plot.....that doesn't make u superior or the film superior........a film has to understood by an average member of the audience and has to be liked by him....otherwise its a DUD film
even critics come below audience
That is my opinion
So...... You want ten year olds to appreciate Bergman? Or Pinter? Or Fellini? No matter who sees the film, no matter how much imagination or patience or attention span or intelligence or maturity they lack?
That's called making fims for the lowest common denominator.
And does this only apply to films? Or does it also apply to music? Novels? Philosophy? Economics? Should Mahler have not written a symphony? Van Gogh never painted a picture? He died never having sold a single painting. It's their fault if some people don't get it?
Right now there are plenty of people who fawn over Taylor Swift but would be aghast to hear the latest by Kendrick Lamar or Bjork.
I guess the director has the last laugh in this case because he won the most prestigious award that can be given, and there will always be plenty of people who are frustrated by it because they are conditioned to detest anything intellectual.
I don't care whether a film has won an award or anything. my opinion is that, we 9the people as a whole) are afraid not to publicly denounce a creative art ....because we are afraid of being called stupid.....so we tend to go "gaga" whenever one sees a work with inconclusive interpretations......
i am asking you a question-which do u think is better/
An artwork that can be understood by everyone and which gives everybody some sort of pleasure?
OR
An artwork which cannot be understood by an average person and which does not give most people any pleasure?
Artists produce artwork fr their own satisfaction as well....thats all right.....but the implication in case of a movie is that it is presented in front of us(the people) for our judgement and to make money in case we like it.....And I believe that makes people the king
I care nothing for the interpretations of the so called intellectuals .....these people are called intellectuals only because we put them there.....so in essence nobody's words carry more or less meaning.....that includes u and me......i will not like a movie just because an intellectual likes it....i myself has to understand and like it.....
but the point is .....the criteria that makes a film great is not the opinion of the so called intellectuals......Its the public opinion !!!!!
U gave lot of examples.....i will just respond to one....Van gog's paintings.....We hear that he was the best and stuff.....but i have no qualms of declaring his painting as "not good ebough" if I indeed find it not good.....I don;t care what the intellectuals think about it.....For me to like it, I have to like it.....but yet if the majority in this world loooks at it and considers the painting to be best......it can be given that position......regardless of my opinion.....thats how it is .....on the other hand, if the majority do not consider his painting to be the best.....then it is not the best
judging from your opinion....I guess u r a person who goes by brand names......And I am quite the opposite.....Whether its a shirt, or a watch or a car or a TV set.....if i don;t like it.....then I wont' buy it.....simple.....brand value means nothing to me!!!!
One day I might see this film and i think I might understand the interpretations as well........I might like it.....but the fact that I like it doesnt make the film any great.........the average person (adult) has to like it .....But I certainly don't like "open to interpretation" stuff.....if i have to pay oney and view another person's creation and has to make up my own mind about it....then that artwork is useless....here what u don;t realise is that its the inabaility of the director to present a lucid storyline.....so in order to hide his inability to come to a conclusion he leaves it open ended.....U r so naive
It is different if we culd reach a conclusion by using out brain.....I mean the answer should be within the film.....The answer should not be "open to interpretation".....the latter is an inadequacy.....And I believe my opinion has the majority
I will explain with an example....two films american Psycho and dejau vu...In MAerican Psycho, nothing is definitive...we don;t know whats real and unreal....its open to interpretation.....The director want to convey how messy a mind of a psycho is.....he makes us realise how messy the mind can be.....in that regard he has succeeded......but does that make the film any great? NO...it doesn't....i know how messy the mind of a psycho is....and i get no pleasure in knowing it...but in case of deja vu it has so many levels (and timelines) not explcitly shown in the film.....but it can be inferred.....so as such its not an open ended film
my point is......b giving open ended films.....the director is transferrring his work to us.....and is obtainiing money and fame because of our work....I wouldn't be part of it !!
i am asking you a question-which do u think is better/
An artwork that can be understood by everyone and which gives everybody some sort of pleasure?
OR
An artwork which cannot be understood by an average person and which does not give most people any pleasure?
Dude, just drop it, forfffksakes. You sound like a smart guy, stop wasting your time trying to explain quantum mechanics to dogs. It's plain to see that this dude has no connection whatsoever with the creative side of his brain. probably never even knew that he had one. If it was like he said, that the average jackass has the final say on how films should be made, we'd only have rom-coms, superhero crap and tear-jerkers about cripples with special abilities. Thank the gods he's simply deluded and has no idea what the art of filmmaking is really about.
Kudos to you for mentioning some of the greatest of the past, which I am sure the guy you're wasting your energy on is totally unfamiliar with. I felt like doing it earlier, then thought to myself: I might just as well try to explain the Nautilus sacred geometry to my parrot.
I am sure your parrot would get the principle eventually...... imdb posters I am not so sure.
sharei don't actuvely do any "putting down' buissiness
but if there is a place to give that opinion...I will....and if i feel a shakespearean novel is not good...i will say it.....and if i feel a beethoven symphony is not good.....i will say it
I don't care for brand names....i don't worry about what other people would think about me....i will speak out my mind at places where I am supposed to give my opinion
I generally don't like 'open ended movies'.....thats a different issue altogether
Uh, jjjjjjj!?!
WHAT in the world is "a shakespearean novel"!?! [sic]
Please, do explain in full; after all, 'if you don't like a shakespearean novel, you just say it' - with such awesome integrity and artistic Honesty, huh?
Does that mean you fully understood every "a shakespearean novel" you've read and could explain in comprehensive, intelligent detail exactly WHY you did not like an intelligent work?
"Please, do explain in full; after all, 'if you don't like a shakespearean novel, you just say it' - with such awesome integrity and artistic Honesty, huh? "
Thats exactly what i mean brother
And for your information....even if i like a novel by someone and if majority finds it stupid......then I conceede the right of the majority o call it stupid
My point is simply that nobody is at a higher pedestal...nobody....the majority views matter
The so called "intellectuals" may go gaga over some artistic work.....and may proclaim an artwork to be world class.....but my question is "who proclaimed the ability of these individuals to proclaim something as worldclass?.....nobody....these so called intellectuals are just holding a self made up bloated position....it means nothing to me
The general public is afraid to say this....i am not !!!!!
And if u can....do not think i consider any artistic work as pathetic...there are works which i have found to be worldclass and which even the so called intellectuals and critics agree to.....but i still would not keep these intellectuals at any higher pedestal....i will judge every artist solely on the basis of their work...not their name
If they or you think...i have no credentials to do that....u r free to think so....but i am free to hold my opinion....and i dont give a damn about what you or anybody think about me
Even I am not at any higher pedestal than anybody else...if others do not think high about any work that I like....then that artistic work cannot claim any higher class.....thats my view
The obvious question is "when can then an artistic work be called world class?"
My answer is...there is no single person, no group of person given any authority to declare any work as world class....these OSCAR awards means nothing to me (except that the award gives me examples of movies that i could see and try out...thats all....for me OSCAR awards doesn't per se makes a movie great).....But then if the whole world seems to like it-then within this world the movie can claim to be world class....that all !
you are confusing entertainment and art. entertainment is for the enjoyment of the masses. art is dependent solely on the intention of the creator. some movies are entertainment, some are art, and some transcend as both.
shareExactly my point....the question here is not whether this movie is art or enetertainment?
Question here is : "is this movie good?"
I say a movie can deem itself to be a good or great artwork only if the majority audience agree
No panel or no single person has any right to declare an artwork as great against the wishes of the majority
If any random person can assume the title of "expert" of a particular field....that title has no value....if u me or anybody else claims to be an "expert" (to judge whether a movie is fine artwork)...without the approval of majority-then its only a shallow proclamation...worthless and pointless !!!!!!
(The above para is meant to negate the rights of so called movie critics to judge a film....they first have to get accepted by the majority to take a position of being a critic before they call themselves that....otherwise "critic" means nothing)
WOW, " jjjjjj-18"!
WHAT a long comment to write! Problem? It is all about You, how smart You Are, what movies You Believe are superior, how that sort of makes YOU Superior, me, me, me...
Good Work. Maybe come back when you can simply discuss a movie...+
This "me" is supposed to stand for the majority opinion.....I did clarify that as a person my opinion about a movie or an art work doesn't mean anything to the world
I might hate an artwork.....the world in general may like it....the work has the right to call itself great within this world
I might love an artwork.....the world may not like it....that work has no right to call itself great.....It can self proclaim it to be great....but to the "world" it doesn't matter...I might want to see that artwork again and again.....it still doesn't make that work world class.....
The point is simply that no one person or even organisation has any authority bestowed upon them to brand any artwork as world class....only majority opinion matters .....because if an artwork has to be world clas..the "world" has to appreciate......not a group of so called experts
You may say that these so called experts are not "so called"....but are actually "experts".....based upon their previous work or experience.....But my opinion is if their previous works were great that doesn't make them good judges
Otherwise these panel of so called experts have to be voted in by the whole world....provided the majority amongst us agree for transferring that right to a few amongst us
Yeah this right here is true, though.
I enjoyed this movie. But I did not LOVE it. It was cool and I got the messages and the plot, and the fantasy, reality stuff. But I was left longing for more, for something. eh, it was a little meh for me. I liked the filming style of the movie. shooting style. but other than that it was mostly meh. Good acting though
I disagree.
Here's why. I'm not sure if you are familiar with Mulholland Drive or any of David Lynch's other works, but if you screen Mulholland Drive to a general audience of, let's say, 200 people, maybe only half a dozen people would understand the film upon the first time watching.
Now, that is somewhat the purpose of the film. Not explaining rigorously what happened in the movie when it happened is part of the trip. It's supposed to leave you questioning and make you come to a conclusion. And I remember I didn't fully understood the movie the first time watching it, but near the end I was in tears.
If the audience doesn't understands the movie and can't appreciate it, that's ONLY their problem, because THEY did not enjoyed. But that doesn't mean that the movie can't be appealing to the small percentage of the average crowd. It's just like pop music; the fact Justin Bieber and Nicki Minaj are top sellers, that doesn't really mean they're the best musicians out there.
You got most of your conclusions correct
If the audience did not understand a movie...thats their problem....agreed
Also agreed that such a movie can be appealing to a small percentage
But that small percentages opinion is not binding on the majority audience....that small percentages opinion do not make a movie good....That small percentages opinion can make a movie good for only that small percntage
For the majority the movie is still *beep*
Just because a small percentage liked and understood a movie doesn't make their opinin any one bit superior.....that doesn't make the movie any more inteligent
The director may intend so.....that doesnt matter
Its ok....if the audience doesn't understand the movie at first....they however has to understand it later....but even thats not enough.....the audience need to like it
There have been cases where i understood a movie only after multiple viewings....then i saw how the plot was connected at multiple layers.....sometimes this experience leads to a better feeling and i will like it....but sometimes despite understanding a film doesn;t make me like it
I think u follow a dictum that....if a film ca be understtod only after multiple viewing and ananlysis...it makes a movie good and intelligent.....but know that....that the dictum is acceptible only for a slelct few like you.....majority is not like that
Now i am also not saying that....the movie with the biggest box office collection will be the greatest.....I think seeing my responses u may think so.....I am not saying that.....the audience may see a movie based on hype...that is no indicator of a film being classy.....its the opinion of the majority audience that counts
People may see a movie and may not like it....or else they may see a movie and would say "it was a fun filled thriller ride....but i wouldn't call it world class"
Do not underestimate the powers of a common man....its that opinion that matters.....not how many people actually saw it
Classic example i quote is....American psycho vs Fightclub......majority do not understand either film ......but majority like Fightclub and dislikes American psycho
"its the opinion of the majority audience that counts"
See, that's something I don't believe in. I think humans are very different from one another, therefore turning generalizations about personal taste and making them objective facts is completely senseless, in my eyes. To me, it's your own individual opinion that counts and the opinions of people similar to you on different aspects... that's the opinion that should matter (to you), and I'm not saying that you're narrowing yourself to people who are just like you, because people can like all the same stuff you do and be completely different individuals. Basically, my point is, being objective works on very few aspects of art. Be subjective and don't rage about art just because it wasn't for you.
By the way, I think majority of people like both Fight Club and American Psycho, and most people understand Fight Club, but not soo much American Psycho.
[deleted]
Everyone has a different taste in movies. You can't force people to like a Movie.
shareAgreed. Liking a movie is a personal choice.
Unfortunately, the masses believe the Academy Awards are a reflection of market popularity... rather than the industry's own jockeying, propaganda and self promotion.
I don't know anyone who thinks that the Academy Awards measure "market popularity."
Anyone who thinks this should be introduced to the idea of nett profit (gross profit minus expenses), which would be a much more transparent measure of market popularity.
____
"If you ain't a marine then you ain't *beep*
[deleted]
7.9 is still a great score
I am Senor Velasco, I drink my milk with tabasco
Yeah, what the heck? People are way too into grade inflation on this site. I rated this a 7 because I thought it didn't stick the landing, but I still consider it quite worth seeing. For me, a 7.9 would be like Edge of Tomorrow or Obvious Child, both in my Top 5 for 2014.
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
7.9 is a sickeningly low score? Do you even use the numbers below 6? This is the problem, some people I think just subtract 5: so 6 is one star, 7 is 2, on up to 10 being five stars. Whereas to me, 8/10 is like four out of five stars, 7 is three and a half, etc.
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
Does Boyhood really come across as a movie that would have a lot of fan boys down rating other movies?
I really liked Birdman, but all in all I thought Boyhood was a better movie. I was hoping Linklater, Iñárritu and Wes Anderson all could go home with an Oscar. But then again, like most awards shows it's only another marketing tool.
IT TOOK 12 YEARS TO MAKE!!!!
shareSpot on OP. Cumberbitches and Nolanites would have rated this low. Very good movie. Definitely deserves a score on par with Whiplash. Nightcrawler also deserves the same 8.5 type of score.
shareA lot of brain dead right wingers hate it because it beat 'American Sniper' at the Oscars. I'm sure they flooded the page with down votes after the ceremony.
shareJust a friendly reminder: the rating is based on 250.000 people's opinion. Out of 7.000.000.000.
Most of these people haven't seen this film. Most of them never will. A lot of them haven't eaten today. A lot of them haven't got jobs or clothes or a roof above their head or even drinking water. Many of them sick with uncureable diseases, some of them will die today. There are natural disasters, catastrophies, famine, slavery, rape, murder, looting, wars around the world every minute of every goddamn day!
Yet society makes you sick because some people don't like a film the same way you do?
I don't mean to be judgemental but I think you either have serious issues about priorities or are a wizard level troll.
(By the way I loved the film and I think 7.9 is a brilliant score.)