Whiplash (2015)

"There are no two words in the English language more harmful than 
good job.”

Whiplash was a film that I had heard nothing but Oscar buzz and high praises for so, needless to say, I was excited to finally get to see it.

A young jazz drummer with a lot of potential is accepted into a respected music conservatory where he gets the opportunity to be mentored by a cut-throat instructor who will stop at nothing to push his students.

I was feeling an unusual combination of thrilled and somewhat let down coming out of ‘Whiplash’…

First and foremost, J.K. Simmons definitely deserves the Oscar for his supporting performance as the absolutely terrifying Terence Fletcher. There’s a lot of tension in the film but it’s not a ghost lurking down a dark hallway waiting to give you a scare, instead, it comes in the form of J.K. Simmons. There's not one second of the entire time he’s on (and off) screen that you don’t feel his presence. I feel like this is the role that he was born to play. He is brutal, witty and powerful.

I believe that everyone, at one point in their life, will encounter a person like Terence Fletcher. I know I have. 

When he is pushing the young drummer Andrew to his limits, you genuinely believe that there’s nothing he won’t do to get the results he’s looking for... Including some more unethical approaches that throw up some interesting questions. 

You see both his professional side and his personal life and he manages to balance them perfectly in the character. Which is the act? Is he just pushing his students because it's his job or is he putting on the "nice guy" act when he's outside of the rehearsal room? Who is the real Terence Fletcher? It makes for a very intriguing character.

What I really enjoyed seeing was the band situation where Terence Fletcher takes control. I have been sitting on one of those chairs with a conductor that won’t hesitate to single you out in front of the entire band or even throw you out. It was thrilling to watch because I could really relate to it. 

It is tense and you can’t help but cling on to the edge of your seat, wondering what Fletcher will do next. Anyone who has been in a large band will understand the pressures of the situation but Director Damien Chazelle does a great job in highlighting it anyway.

I was extremely disappointed in Miles Teller’s performance as Andrew. 

I was hoping for either a great actor trying to mime the drums or a great drummer trying to act well. However, what we get with Teller is a mediocre actor miming the drums badly… Which is so heartbreaking when he is being outshone by his counterpart J.K. Simmons, I’d have loved to have seen two fantastic actors going head to head but you never feel like Teller pulls it off. This might be down to experience but it really shows when they are at each others throats.

His drumming is totally off the mark. 

The timing is way off and it’s a struggle to really believe him as a player. It seems like he’s had some basic teaching for the role but I can't help but feel like he should be more than competent for the complex parts that he’s meant to be playing. Maybe I’m just being over-critical because I’m a musician but there was a lot of fast cutting and canted angles to cover his sticks which was either a stylistic choice or purely to cover his lack of ability on the drums. I sense it might be a mixture of both. This was extremely frustrating to watch as it took me out of the movie instantly, I don’t mind miming in movies but it has to be done perfectly to make it invisible. 

When it came to his performance off the kit, I always felt that he was just “acting” the whole time. It was forced and there was never a natural flow to his performance that I could sink in to and enjoy. Possibly this is because J.K. Simmons totally embodies his character in every detail, it highlights the other actors who don’t seem as comfortable in their roles.

One of the biggest questions in the film is "Is it worth it?". 

What's the point in being the best if you have nothing else to show for it? 

If you end up hating your talent, is it worth doing? It promotes the idea that you have to be the most skilled player to be the best but I felt the opposite while watching ‘Whiplash’. I felt that the performances and the music were all skill and no heart. It was shallow despite being technically perfect. There was never any feeling in the music that I thought I’d appreciate in the film, it came from the characters around the instruments but never from the music itself. It became more about hitting every note rather than what the music was about. In that sense there was a slight hint of elitism in the film. You can be the best player on the planet but if there's no emotion or love for it then what's the point?

The stakes are always high in ‘Whiplash’ and they are always raised. Each act just cranks the tension up and tightens the grip around your throat. It was well paced as each scene seems to be larger and more hardcore than the last. 

It was really fun to watch the constant manipulation from Fletcher and how he takes it to the next level, he keeps abusing his authority and eventually using other students to get Andrew to where he needs to be. He'll be kicking and screaming the whole way but, because of how badly Andrew wants to succeed and impress Fletcher, he'll go along with it.

When it comes to performing the pieces in the film it’s not just about playing them well, it becomes about playing them flawlessly. Fletcher is such a perfectionist that he demands the absolute best from each and every player in the band and is willing to mentally and physically abuse them to get the best. This raises a very interesting subject in the realm of teaching and leading. What is the right way? Is there a right way?

It seems extreme in the film but, at the end of the day, Fletcher gets the results. Did he go about it in the right way? Absolutely not but he did get the best out of Andrew’s skill. Abusing the people you are meant to be teaching/leading isn’t what I would consider the “right way” of doing things, I don’t think it is the “right way” of doing things in any walk of life. I personally believe that that form of teaching/leading almost never works but it makes a compelling case for it in ‘Whiplash’. 

Overall, Whiplash was exciting with an unforgettable performance from J.K. Simmons but a slightly uneven and unbelievable performance from Miles Teller. It challenges the audience to think but does feel slightly pretentious (sorry Oscar guys)… Worth a watch nonetheless.

The Hobbit Trilogy

"I'm looking for someone to share in an adventure."

'The Hobbit’ trilogy has finally wrapped after a long, bloated and strenuous 6 years since pre-production started in 2008.

The way I went to see ‘The Hobbit’ trilogy is a reflection of the sheer disappointment that I felt after each one passed.

2012

‘An Unexpected Journey’

I excitedly queued up and was first in line to see it.

2013

‘The Desolation of Smaug’

I went to see it... Hopeful.

2015

‘The Battle of the Five Armies’ 

I happened to catch it on a Wednesday afternoon a couple of weeks before it left the cinema… 
More of an obligatory watch to finish the trilogy.

I’m going to discuss the three films as the trilogy, treating them like one continuing story as trilogies tend to be.

After the overwhelming success and popularity of ‘The Lord of the Rings', it was too good to be true when it was announced that ‘The Hobbit’ was in the works. Initially, visionary director Guillermo Del Toro was to take the helm and, without a shadow of a doubt, it could have and would have been an extraordinary adventure.

Del Toro could have brought a different style to the story with his background with films like ‘Pan’s Labyrinth’ and ‘Hellboy’. “The Hobbit’ is much more of a children’s book than ‘The Lord of the Rings’ trilogy was and had a much lighter, almost fairytale like feel to it that becomes progressively darker. It would have suited Del Toro to the ground. ‘The Lord of the Rings’ meets ‘Pan’s Labyrinth’... safe to say I was more than excited.

Unfortunately, after so many delays and issues, Del Toro left the project. There were rumours of various directors that could take over but, after many negotiations with New Line Cinema and Warner Brothers, it was confirmed that Peter Jackson was to take over and direct the two films.

A rocky start to say the least…

I had faith in Peter Jackson though. After all, he made ‘The Lord of the Rings’ so it’ll be just as good right?

Unfortunately not...

I became extremely worried after hearing the news that it was now going to become a trilogy instead of two films like first planned. 

There was a long debate as to whether or not it was simply a money grabbing campaign to spread it over three films or a creative decision that would best serve the story. I preferred to believe it was the latter but I was still sceptical. One book to be split into three films? How is that possible when they made three ’The Lord of the Rings’ books in three films? Granted, there was a lot of content missing from ‘The Lord of the Rings’ that would have been nice to see in the films but splitting a book like ‘The Hobbit’ into three?

My fears were all realised. 

The structure of the three films are totally off. 

‘An Unexpected Journey’ was so bloated and long that it became boring and tedious. 

‘The Desolation of Smaug’ was relatively well balanced and ’The Battle of the Five Armies’ was simply all action. 

If they had shortened the long-winded ‘An Unexpected Journey’ and combined that with half of ’The Desolation of Smaug’ then it could have been a well paced and interesting first film.

Cut down the wearisome, mindless action of ‘The Battle of the Five Armies’ and attach that to the last half of ‘The Desolation of Smaug’ and it could have worked as a nice finale.

Instead of three broken films, you would then have ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’ and ‘The Hobbit: There and Back Again' to evenly finish our time in Middle Earth.

Unfortunately we don’t live in a perfect world.

In hindsight, Peter Jackson was the wrong director for the job. 

‘The Hobbit’ is an entirely different beast to ‘The Lord of the Rings’ and should have been treated as such. I really shouldn’t compare ‘The Hobbit’ to ‘The Lord of the Rings’ but because of the way Jackson made ‘The Hobbit’ trilogy it makes it impossible not to.

’The Hobbit' was desperately trying to be another ‘The Lord of the Rings’ and it just didn’t work. It tried to have a similar tone to ‘The Lord of the Rings’ because of Jackson’s heavy influence when it should have been it's own style. 
Del Toro would have brought a darker and more magical edge to it that would have suited the more childish aspects of the story. However, with Jackson’s serious tone, it becomes a pantomime of melodrama and silliness when we deal with some of the more "unrealistic" characters and plot points. 

Del Toro had spoken about using futuristic animatronics that would take a ten year leap into the future for the creatures in the film which would have been amazing to see. It would have been reminiscent of 'The Fellowship of the Ring' with the gritty practical effects. You would start in the happy and golden shire at the beginning of the journey and slowly descend into a dark, nightmarish fairytale. This would have been interesting to experience rather than the epic films Peter Jackson tried to make them in an attempt to tie them into 'The Lord of the Rings'.

We ended up with a huge amount of extremely fake and silly looking CGI (Computer Generated Images) that end up taking you out of the film. It got to the stage that I wasn't sure what was real anymore, rather than what was CGI. A terrible mistake after how great ‘The Lord of the Rings’ looked with the practical effects and miniature work. The CGI in ‘The Lord of the Rings’ was ground breaking but it wasn’t over-used. The CGI was only used when something couldn’t be done practically and all of the CGI that was used looked so incredible that you forgot that it wasn’t real.

The fact that they were planning on using a real actor to portray Bolg (one of the Orc villains) in the film but later swapped the practical costume and make-up out in favour of a completely CG character, really upset me. When you see the photographs and concept art for the original character, it looks fantastic! However, we are given a totally two-dimensional CG character that has no weight or power and he becomes totally unbelievable.

CGI Bolg

 Original Bolg

Peter Jackson has said in the past that he wished all of the orcs in ‘The Lord of the Rings’ could have been CG and that way of thinking terrifies me as a movie lover.

How can you favour CG characters (that don’t ever look as real or have as much emotion) over a practical character that comes alive on screen. You can physically see and feel the character and that brings the reality of it home. They interact with the environment differently and they bring out performances in the other actors that a CG character just can't. There isn’t another orc in the series that comes close to matching Lurtz from ‘The Fellowship of the Ring’ in terror or on-screen presence. Why is that? It’s because it’s a real actor! 

One CGI aspect of ‘The Hobbit’ that I actually really enjoyed was Smaug the dragon in ‘The Desolation of Smaug’. He was menacing, articulate and actually extremely intimidating. You got a sense of the sheer size and power of him with his booming voice and piercing eyes. It was quite a spectacle to watch him in 3-D in the IMAX. They seemed to have spent a lot more time working on him than any of the other effects because he seems to outshine any of the other CGI that is featured in the other two films.

Another issue I had with the CGI was how the environments looked. You get an organic feel from the ‘The Lord of the Rings’ sets and locations, they look like they could exist and some of them actually did. They went above and beyond to build and create realistic sets and miniatures to give the audience a more immersive image of Middle Earth that drew everyone in. I get that maybe they were going for a more dreamy effect for the locations as it is a more lighthearted film but you can't have it both ways when they're also creating a dark and moody tone for the rest of the film. I always remember seeing the original locations in 'The Lord of the Rings' for the first time. Rivendell was breathtaking, Rohan was majestic and Moria was haunting.

What we get in ‘The Hobbit’ trilogy is awful looking CGI environments that look more like a Thomas Kinkade painting, not that there's anything wrong with a Thomas Kinkade painting, it’s just that this is Middle Earth we’re dealing with, not Disney...

(Rivendell from 'The Hobbit')

(Thomas Kinkade)

Martin Freeman was a good choice for Bilbo, I can say that much for it. He captured the essence of Bilbo and I honestly can’t think of an other actor that I would have rather seen in that role. His prudish attitude and mannerisms are so representative of Bilbo and the Hobbit lifestyle that he blends right into Middle Earth with ease.

The famous scene with Gollum from the book was also a memorable moment. It actually felt like great cinema and like we were getting a flavour of how good the films could have been. It felt closer to the feel of the book and it gave us a ray of hope that we never really felt again.

Most of the action sequences in ‘The Hobbit’ looked like a ride that you would see in Disneyland. They were ridiculous in the context that they were in. If Del Toro had done a similar sequence in the almost fairytale like style then it probably would have been acceptable in that world. For instance, the Barrel sequence in ’The Desolation of Smaug’ was absolutely ridiculous but it should have been a memorable moment from the book that just didn’t translate in Jackson's vision.

This being said, some of the more traditional action sequences from 'The Battle of the Five Armies' was actually quite enjoyable. When it wasn't silly and exaggerated, it was quite a sight with all the various armies all joining in one place for an epic showdown. I revelled in seeing the Dwarven army for the first time, something that you never get a taste of in 'The Lord of the Rings'. However, despite all of the huge action and intricate set pieces, I can't help but feel a little underwhelmed as I've seen them all before and I've seen them done better. It felt like a video game that was made as a spin off for 'The Lord of the Rings', it's exciting to play but I'd rather see the real thing in the movie. 

There's a lot of convenient stalling when villains are allowing heroes to have their "touching" moment and (just when you think all hope is gone) there's suddenly someone there to rescue them! You quickly catch on to it and it becomes predictable. They do it so often that it's almost laughable.

The characters that we knew and loved from ‘The Lord of the Rings’ became caricatures of themselves. We didn’t care for anyone, not even Gandalf… All of his lines were like cheap rip-offs of the extraordinarily heart-felt moments he gave us in ‘The Lord of the Rings’ trilogy, which is heartbreaking to say. Don't get me wrong, Ian Mckellen is a phenomenal actor but he even said that he broke down crying on the set because of the lack of human interaction working with the green screen and the excessive use of special effects.

"I cried, actually. I cried. Then I said out loud, 'This is not why I became an actor'."

It's so hard to actually care for any of the characters in the film. For instance, the forced love story between dwarf number 7 and the elf lady just totally missed the mark. You never spend enough genuine time with any of the characters to develop a bond that, if broken, would render you helpless. Even when some of the main characters start dying it's hard to care. 
Comparatively in 'The Lord of the Rings' when a character is dying or in danger, you can't help but cling onto the edge of your seat in the hope that they'll survive. Sometimes even bringing a tear to your eye. Unfortunately, this just never happens in any of 'The Hobbit' movies, even though they were trying their best to get that same reaction. 

Overall, the trilogy as a whole is a total misfire. There was so much money pumped into three films that shouldn’t have been made by a director that just needs to learn to let go. A disappointing end to what could have been a half decent set of films had Del Toro made them.

Although, we did get a great song out of the 'The Desolation of Smaug' by Ed Sheeran. I'd say that was a small consolation. 

Just stick to 'The Lord of the Rings' and forget this trilogy ever happened.

Foxcatcher (2015)

"Coach is the father. Coach is a mentor. 

Coach has great power on athlete's life."

There was a surprising amount of hype starting to surround ‘Foxcatcher’ in the lead up to the release and I was really looking forward to seeing it.

Olympic Gold medal winning brothers, Mark & David Schultz, join Team Foxcatcher, a wrestling team sponsored by the slightly unbalanced Multimillionaire John E. du Pont, as they train for the 1988 games in Seoul.

The trailer was dark, unsettling and intriguing. It had a strong cast and featured some unbelievable claims in the reviews such as "There are great American movies, and then there are great movies that take America as their very subject, from Greed and Citizen Kane to There Will Be Blood and The Social Network. Foxcatcher has that same soaring ambition, and it can hold its own in that August company.”.

Big (almost melodramatic) claims there…

The cinema was packed on opening weekend and I went on the Saturday to see the “shocking true story”.

‘Foxcatcher’ promises a film that it doesn’t quite deliver on... We are sold an entirely different film from the trailer and that really disappointed me. There was so much hype surrounding the film and I can’t help but feel that it’s not entirely deserved.

Steve Carell gives a sensational performance as the multimillionaire John E. du Pont. I was struggling with the concept of seeing Steve Carell in a serious drama but, as soon as we see him in character for the first time, there’s no doubt that he’s doing something special. 

This isn’t Steve Carell. This isn’t Evan from ‘Bruce Almighty’ or Brick from ‘Anchorman’, it’s an entirely different actor. I expected to be constantly waiting for a punchline to come from Carell but I actually totally forgot who he was. 

In the two hour run time he is John E. du Pont.

The remarkable make-up changes his features and give him a creepy and introverted look, almost reminiscent of Vampire Count Orlok in ‘Nosferatu’. This transformation then frees up his range as a “serious" actor because we barely recognise him as the comedy star we are used to. He takes on the mannerisms of the real John E. du Pont and, after watching real footage of him, he has undoubtedly captured him in every way.

This being said, unfortunately, if you were to take Steve Carell’s performance out of the equation then I think the film becomes relatively dull. Much like in bad horror or comedy movies, they show you the “best bits” in the trailer and ‘Foxcatcher’ falls prey to this trick. It takes all of the most interesting scenes and builds them into a tense and thrilling climax for the trailer so, when you come to watch the film, it starts to really drag. It has some seriously good tension in the first act and I hoped it was going to lead to a dark and thrilling climax but it never came. It wanders along at a slow and steady pace that is established in the first half and never picks up. You are left wanting and expecting something to cut through the well built tension but it doesn’t come. Don't get me wrong, it was interesting to watch the relationships develop between the two athletes and the coach but it just wasn’t what was promised.

I have never been a huge fan of Channing Tatum but I was hearing soaring reviews about him as Mark Schultz and ‘Foxcatcher' being his breakthrough performance so I was expecting a revelatory performance to say the least. 

In the end I wasn’t impressed. He had obviously done some intensive training and had some impressive skills in wrestling (from what I could tell) but, other than that, I found him unbearably flat and his performance quite forced. I always feel like I'm watching Channing Tatum "acting" rather than being transported by his character and forgetting who I'm watching.

There is a scene where he smashes his head against a mirror and it really cuts him, this was the scene I had heard so much about but I think it takes more than an actor hurting himself to give a memorable performance.

There were some homosexual and homophobic undertones in the film that I picked up on between the coach and his athletes that was interesting but was only implied as the filmmakers were probably only allowed to imply rather than show. This added another depth to the relationship between John E. du Pont and Mark Schultz.

Shoot me if I’m wrong here but I tend to think that Mark Ruffalo just plays Mark Ruffalo in each role he's in and, not surprisingly, I thought he was bland as David Schultz too. He's a soft spoken "nice guy" and I enjoy watching him in the films he's in but I was hoping to go deeper. Granted, like Channing Tatum, he had gone through some intensive wrestling training that was impressive to watch but other than that I thought they were both outclassed by Steve Carell in every way.

The film does examine some interesting concepts and ideas. The relationship between two brothers was one that was gripping to watch for the most part. Mark is always overshadowed by Dave and this really pushes him to try and achieve everything he sets out for. He is mislead by coach du Pont and his wealth and it is great to watch their relationship deteriorate as the film goes on.

Another interesting idea that was explored was the effect of wealth and power on a human being that has grown up knowing no different. John E. du Pont was clearly a spoiled and troubled man who, because of his immense wealth, wasn’t living in reality. He was a paranoid and extremely unbalanced person. He should have received help but instead was sheltered by everyone around him because of his money and his power. When you combine that with his strained relationship with his mother and his seemingly infinite bank account, you end up with a dangerously unstable man who is striving for recognition and a false sense of achievement.

It was clever the way director Bennett Miller managed to use the physical wrestling to express the psychological struggle between the characters. The trio of characters, Mark Schultz, Dave Schultz and John E. du Pont, all battle between themselves as they strive for greatness.

Overall, I think I was maybe expecting something different from ‘Foxcatcher’. It was a slow burner that didn’t end up burning very bright. I enjoyed the intense character study but wouldn’t rush out to see it again. A misleading trailer disappointed me but it wasn't a disaster, it was just different to what I thought the film was going to be.

Steve Carell needs an Oscar nomination for this, if not a win, but other than that I’d rather see other films pick up the awards this year as I think they've earned it.

Birdman (2015)

"People, they love blood. They love action. 

Not this talky, depressing, philosophical bullshit.”

A new year begins and the first film of 2015 that I went to see was the much anticipated ‘Birdman’.

Riggan Thomas, a washed-up actor who once played a movie superhero, struggles with his pride (and his sanity) as he desperately tries to mount a comeback on Broadway to prove that he’s a serious actor.

I was in two minds about ‘Birdman’ all the way through it.

I was in awe at the technical brilliance of the film-making and the terrific performances from the entire cast but at the same time it began to feel slightly gimmicky, at times self indulgent and way too long overall…

Michael Keaton plays Riggan Thomas and gives an absolutely fantastic performance. It really hits home when you’re dealing with an actor that has some very close ties to the character that they are playing. The fact that Keaton played Batman and how that ties into the whole Birdman aspect of the film is sometimes hard to watch as Keaton is torn apart by those around him. We can only watch on, helpless, as he tries to hold it together and find his feet as a "serious actor”. His sanity balances on a knife edge as he hallucinates and hears the voice of his Hollywood counterpart - Birdman. He constantly flips between making us laugh and really making us feel something profound. 

An unquestionably mature performance from a great actor, playing an actor, who is trying to be a great actor…

Edward Norton and Emma Stone also kill it in this movie alongside a notably subtle but hilarious performance from Zach Galifianakis. It always boosts the film when the calibre of the supporting cast is just as strong as the lead. It is a joy to watch and there are some immensely truthful and genuine moments from some very talented actors.

You really have to see ‘Birdman’ to believe it. 

Much like the film ‘Rope’ by Alfred Hitchcock, the entire film is shot in only a handful of long, unbroken takes. It runs more like a theatre piece than a film with minimal editing cuts, elaborate scene transitions and extremely intricate set pieces that will leave you wondering how they did it so smoothly.

This technique allows the audience to feel a part of the film in a way that a traditional narrative cannot because it’s an unbroken shot (with no cuts) that makes you feel like you are experiencing each moment alongside the actors. It’s an interesting way to shoot a film but it's not as revolutionary as it is being portrayed in the media. Although the concept of shooting a film nearly entirely in one shot isn’t revolutionary, the way they do it in ‘Birdman’ is most definitely revolutionary. I can’t see it becoming the norm in terms of shooting films but it has set the bar extremely high for the next filmmaker who wants to try and shoot a film in as close to one shot as they can get.

I believe the technique was used to enhance the feeling of disorientation in the audience and to help put across an accurate portrayal of having a mental health problem. It really throws you off when days are changing within shots and actors are appearing in different places within the same scene. It puts you into a whirlwind that helps you get to grips with and understand Riggan Thomas’ life.
The whole film has a lot of energy and it sweeps you off your feet.

This being said, it did feel a little gimmicky from time to time. The transitions and moments that are built with the long takes in mind are very impressive but, at the end of the day, end up taking you out of the film. I was distracted by the more gimmicky elements of the filming that weren’t really necessary. They felt a bit like the director showing off. 

I don’t want to take anything away from the astounding achievement and work that must have went into orchestrating those shots but it felt like overkill at times.

The film was way too long. 

There were moments where the film could have ended and it would have been great. However, it went on to give you a second ending and then a third… I was sitting in the cinema checking my watch hoping they’d wrap it up soon. Three different endings that took the tone of the film in three different directions. Each direction would have been fine but I felt like it had to commit to one.

It dragged on in that sense, combine that with the long takes and it becomes a very long piece to sit through, despite it only running for around 2 hours (which seems to be the average running length for a film these days).

‘Birdman' explores the battle between theatre and film and the critics surrounding it. It deals with the idea that just because you are in Hollywood blockbuster doesn’t mean you’re a bad actor and vise versa with theatre, just because you are in a small theatre production doesn’t mean you’re a good actor. It was a little “preachy” with it at times but it gets the point across fairly well. 

Michael Keaton delivers an awe-inspiring speech to a theatre critic that I will never forget as it sums up what so called “critics" are for a lot of people. I don’t consider myself a critic, I just like to talk about films, but there are “critics” out there who consider their opinions gospel. He talks about the artists who are bearing their souls and giving up everything on the stage/screen and for one critic’s opinion to have the power to affect whether or not their art is credible/successful is just ludicrous. Art is subjective and it really drives that point home with some compelling writing performed by a great actor.

It’s hard to rate ‘Birdman’ because I’m totally split down the middle as to what I thought about it. I really enjoyed certain aspects of it but was surprisingly disappointed by some parts of it. 

It was unusually funny and slightly weird, it was interesting and unique and had some terrific performances. However it was long, a bit self indulgent and almost confused as to what it was. I think the only fair way to rate it around the middle with a 6. Deceptively low but it seems fair considering I am in two minds.

I respect ‘Birdman’ for all of it’s technical achievements but didn’t necessarily like the film all that much. It left me with a lot to talk about so I guess that’s a good sign.

Definitely worth a watch. 
I'm sure it'll be nominated for a handful of Oscars so get in to see it before the hype!

Watch it and just try not to be impressed by it.