Thought he was fantastic.

sucked in my opinion. I barely got through half of it.

haven't completed my Oscar film fest yet, but Grand Budapest Hotel, and Boyhood were better total overall films...

should have won imo.

and defines all its ills.

Yes, Keaton was 'acting' well and he spoke his lines well and embodied the character. I could barely watch half the film, and felt like I was watching a bad off-off Broadway play written by the angry boyfriend of a theatrical agent. Watching an angry, pointless actor suffering temper tantrums and mood swings just isn't my idea of greatness or a great film. That Hollywood chose to honor this stupid vignette speaks volumes to the garbage spewing out of the industry these days.

I want films that speak to joy, to pain, to children, to real life and experiences... to fantastical imaginations and the stuff of dreams. I like vignettes into reality and personal trials and traumas and not every one of them has to be an Academy award winner, but gosh, I miss talent, perspective, great writing and great film-making and great directing, and it's sorely lacking. And when it is evident, it's overlooked and missed by the Academy as a whole. And yes, Birdman contained many of those elements, but not to the point of greatness or even acknowledgement to this level, by any means.

#venting

"Shakespeare In Love" (which I liked)
"The Artist" (which I liked)
"Birdman"

"Shakespeare In Love". I love historical dramas and really loved the story within the story that brought the character and motivation of the story to life. It was fantasy, and pretty and most of all, Shakespeare! So it fit the bill for me!

Keaton deserved a nod, but not the film...

but thought Birdman was fantastic.

nt

Also, Birdman's four Oscar wins went to the Mexican director, producer and screenplay author and to the Mexican cinematographer. The American actors that were nominated -- Keaton, Norton and Stone -- were shut out.

You would think a narcissistic industry would have rewarded Keaton and his fellow actors. You also wouldn't think they'd hand out four Oscars to a British-German production filmed in Germany.

Maybe there's more to it than you think.

and that's a vaild reason to award it an Oscar.

Guess I was one of the few who enjoyed watching it.

Angry, washed up actor throwing tantrums... is all I saw. A bit of cinema verite camera work, long follow cam shots, meh, that's the technical stuff... An indulged kid straight out of film school could manage that.

In real life, there is a reason why successful actors don't get work. And I also find very, very often that actors are cast in roles that they are on par with in real life. It's not always acting, often it's them just playing their personality in a role.

In this day and age, finding a different means of expression is impressive.

I thought all the characters had their own interesting sub-stories, too. It wasn't just about Keaton's character.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

So great to see some really creative work on screen. We need more of this!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

What does he need another one for?

Maybe Clint can hear the empty chair talk back now....Best sound editing...bwahhahaha.

My initial impression was that it was semi-biographical crap with Keaton pretty much playing himself. Didn't interest me a bit.

But I can be corrected. Also still need to see The Theory of Everything.

Was pleasantly surprised at how many awards Grand Budapest took - Wes Anderson certainly has a unique method.

that's the way it's always been.

In addition to being really fun to watch, Grand Budapest Hotel was a gorgeous film. I felt the production awards were well-deserving.

He's been underutilized in Hollywood, imo.

Hopefully he will get more deserving roles after this success for him.

[img][/img]

Selma was the most powerful and significant film, but Birdman was the most technically innovative and imaginative. I could have supported either win. Probably since it is the Academy and the voters are all actors, directors, and other film geeks, Birdman was just going to be more impressive to them. It doesn't hurt that most voters were white, and Selma was a film that refused to do the normal nod to white egos.

Best Actor--David Oweloyo was better than Steve Carell or Benedict Cumberbatch and should have replaced one of them for the nomination. It was strong year for male performances. Mark Ruffalo (Begin Again), Jeremy Renner (Kill the Messenger), John Lithgow and/or Alfred Molina (Love is Strange), and probably a few others I've forgotten could have just as easily been nominated as Carell. I think they got the winner right, but it could have gone to Keaton or Oweloyo, too.

Best Director--Ava DuVernay should have been nominated, and the battle should have been between her and Inarritu. Either deserved it.

Best Actress, Best Supporting Actors, and Best Screenplays I thought they got right.

In the big picture, I think two films this year are going to have a lasting impact. Most will just fade away--American Sniper, Foxcatcher, Boyhood, etc. I think Selma is going to be a classic that gets shown more and more over the years. Many kids will grow up learning about the Civil Rights movement in high school and college watching this film. And Birdman, while maybe not getting replayed quite as often, is going to affect the way films are directed for a decade or more.

Not to mention, it's going to increase the number of Inarritu projects, the respect and opportunities of all Mexican film students, and probably create an increasing role for Latinos in film at all positions. As with "Space" last year, a Mexican director with English as a second language directed a white cast for a US audience in a film about white issues, and the film sold well and was awarded well. The idea now may spread that Latino actors can play mainstream roles rather than playing Latino caricatures, or more importantly, that Latino culture in Mexico and the US can be portrayed as something other than gang-related, drug-related, housekeeping-related, or sexy-hot-Latina related.

My thoughts. Probably wrong, as always.

arch enemies the bible thumpin gun humpin all American grand ma and pa.
That should have been worth a few wing nut votes.