2015-03-21Michael
Keaton Michael Keaton has always been a top-notch actor, and his performance in the TV series [The Company] is enough to give him 10 Emmy Awards. So in [Birdman], the first time he won the best actor is really just a logical honor. There is also a very powerful Edward Norton (he has always been underestimated, or has not met a suitable script and production team. He has to xxoo with the heroine on stage, and majestically pull the flag to the audience, also It's a strange one.) To give him a foil, plus a bunch of awesome green leaves, it's hard not to win the award.
At first glance, it will feel like a dazzling style. It is indeed a skill to be able to shoot almost the entire movie into a long lens. There are guides on Zhihu, how to make a shot through the window and incomparably coherent, and suddenly feel tall. And the story, the scene, and the characters of the movie themselves, under the rotating lens, under the superpower that is unclear whether it really exists or not, becomes more and more blurred. I guessed that he would collapse on the stage at the end. As a once-incomparable star, he might feel unprofessional without some maverick behavior on the stage of the drama. But I didn't guess that he survived this shot (I still have too many traditional and low thoughts for the director); of course, I didn't guess the last scene, birdman really flew in the end?
Visual films like [Batman] can always create the best effect at the time of release and earn back all the box office costs. Years later, the male protagonist of that year seems to have woken up and used a joke titled [Birdman] to treat himself The year came to complain. Do you think that the bigger of [Birdman] who is self-reflection is much higher than that of [Batman]? Sometimes, I think Hollywood likes to deceive itself. After all, which is more important to grab the audience's attention or grab the audience's heart? What is a good movie?
View more about Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) reviews
