Showing posts with label Edward Norton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Edward Norton. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

'Isle of Dogs' Review

Nominated For: Best Animated Feature and Best Original Score.

In the near future (twenty years from now), snout fever (aka "dog flu") ravages the canine population of Megasaki City. By executive decree of Mayor Kobayashi, all dogs are hereby banished to a gargantuan garbage-dump otherwise referred to as Trash Island. Isle of Dogs then follows a determined twelve-year-old boy named Atari as he hijacks a miniature plane and flies across the river in search of his bodyguard-dog, Spots. Once he crashes on Trash Island, a pack of mangy mutts join him on his epic odyssey to find and rescue his long lost friend. 
Isle of Dogs is the ninth feature length film to be written and directed by the idiosyncratic Wes Anderson. If you've ever seen a Wes Anderson production, you have a clear idea of what you should expect from an acclaimed auteur of his pedigree. There will be whip pans, symmetric shot composition, an obsessive attention to detail, colorful settings, obscure older music, quirky characters, and abundant instances of offbeat humor. Of course, all of these elements can be found within Isle of Dogs since the film champions Anderson's unique, eccentric style as its most defining attribute.
If you're a fan of Anderson's work, you'll likely be drawn to see Isle of Dogs because it's the distinctive director's return to stop-motion animation after his first foray utilizing the medium in 2009, Fantastic Mr. Fox. His obsessive-compulsive nature as a filmmaker simply means he's suited to deal with stop-motion because the process is absurdly tedious and requires an incredible attention-to-detail. In order for the models to move with an authentic fluidity, animators have to continually adjust puppets with the slightest alterations between individual photographed frames. It's truly a testament to the ability of these animators that I often forgot I was watching stop-motion because there was such a lifelike look to it all. It's really remarkable, and I'd consider it to be among the finest stop-motion animation I've ever seen on film. 
Like any other Wes Anderson production, the art direction, production design, cinematography, and score are all exceptionally executed as can be expected. Stylistically, the film pays homage to the traditional Japanese epic, and Japan in general, in so many ways. Tristan Oliver's cinematography excellently communicated a sense of scale and intimacy/aggression (depending on the scene's context) while sticking to the symmetrical shot composition characteristic of all Anderson's work. All the while, the film is immensely energized by the beat of Alexandre Desplat's percussive score that stands out as a unique addition to the two-time Oscar winning composer's resume. 
Meanwhile, the film is facing some online controversy of cultural appropriation... I'm not quite sure what exactly is being interpreted as such, but I didn't think there was anything in the film that could be construed as offensive. Perhaps I'm not "woke" enough to understand it, but I believe these claims are grossly over-exaggerated. If you see the film and think otherwise, feel free to let me know what I'm missing. I'd actually say Anderson does a great deal to honor Japanese culture by casting ethnically appropriate actors for the Japanese human roles, homaging Japanese cinema, art, and architecture, and incorporating elements of cultural significance. That's not even to mention the fact that Anderson made the stylistic choice for all the Japanese characters to speak in Japanese throughout the entire film. 
A title card appears in the beginning to inform the audience in addition to letting everyone know there won't be subtitles either. Fortunately, the dog barks have been translated to English and an interpreter and outside narrator are incorporated for occasional English translations. I'm sure this will be met with a divisive reaction from American audiences because we'd like to understand everything. I felt the decision paid off for the most part, but it admittedly impaired the narrative from as I found it difficult to completely connect with characters I didn't always understand. Although I respect Anderson's commitment to the concept, subtitles would have been immensely beneficial.
While I appreciated the broad overarching themes regarding the canine breed's celebrated characteristics of bravery, loyalty, and unconditional love, the film's storytelling is a little ruff (pun intended). This isn't to say film's story is entirely problematic, but rather to note it stands out as superficial when compared to Anderson's other work. The film relies heavily of the whimsical charm of these junkyard dogs cracking quips in deadpan, which worked wonders by the way. Otherwise, it's as if Anderson is holding audiences at an arm's distance from the human characters due to the aforementioned decision not to translate all the Japanese dialogue. There's enough expression for audiences to pick up on distinctive personalities, but they simply weren't fleshed out or developed as much as I'd have liked. 
Isle of Dogs does however feature an especially distinguished cast composed of Bryan Cranston, Scarlett Johansson, Francis McDormand, Greta Gerwig, Liev Schreiber, Kunichi Nomura, Koyu Rankin, Ken Watanabe, and common Anderson collaborators such as Bill Murray, Edward Norton, Jeff Goldblum, Bob Balaban, F. Murray Abraham, and Tilda Swinton voicing an assortment of humans and hounds. To discuss them all individually would be a logistical nightmare, but do know that each actor added a great deal of charm and lent themselves well to their respective roles. Cranston is undoubtedly the standout as the surly stray alpha dog, Chief, and I have to say Koyu Rankin did remarkably well for his first role in a feature film in spite of the Japanese language barrier I brought up earlier. 
Before I wrap things up, I suppose I ought to mention that adults will have more to take away from Isle of Dogs than children. I realize the appeal of cute dogs and a young protagonist might make it appear to be made with children in mind, but that couldn't be further from the truth. There's not really much in the way of inappropriate humor, but the comedy is dark on occasion and the story itself is fairly mature. Significant portions of the film also move at a slower pace that I can't really envision kids enjoying, especially when the humor will fly over their heads. One other thing well worth mentioning is that you may look to see where you can watch Isle of Dogs after reading this review to learn it may not be playing at a theater near you just yet. That is because the film's had an especially limited release roll-out from Fox Searchlight. They'll be expanding in the coming weeks, but I'm unsure when the wide release date is. I was fortunate enough to attend an advanced screening of the film though and wanted to share a review regardless of that.
I may not consider Isle of Dogs to be one of my favorite films from Wes Anderson, but Anderson sure is one sly dog, because I can't dispute the fact I left the theater with my tail wagging (metaphorically, of course). It's taken three months, but Anderson's given audiences the first animated feature worth barking about this year!

Film Assessment: B+

Saturday, October 28, 2017

Throwback Thursday Review: 'The Incredible Hulk'

Sorry for the delay on this week's review, but I've had a busy week and am looking at a busy weekend ahead of me. This week I'm reviewing The Incredible Hulk, since that's one of the few Marvel Cinematic Universe movies I've yet to review, and because Hulk will factor into next week's Thor: Ragnarok. The next few Throwback Thursday reviews will be over Thor: The Dark WorldMurder on the Orient Express (1974), and Batman (1989) to tie into the releases of Thor: RagnarokMurder on the Orient Express (2017), and Justice League. In the meantime, I'll do what I can to make some progress on the delayed Throwback Thursday Reviews of InceptionStand By MeThe World's EndThe Shining, the It miniseries (1990), Scott Pilgrim vs. the WorldRisky Business (1983), and the Triple-R for Interstellar

'The Incredible Hulk' Review


The Incredible Hulk follows scientist Bruce Banner as he searches for a means to cure the gamma radiation that mutated his cells in a laboratory accident. After the incident, Banner possessed the ability to turn into the Hulk, a raging green monster, anytime he got angry. Meanwhile, Banner has General 'Thunderbolt' Ross and the U.S. Government on his tail, who intend to reverse-engineer his condition to create an entire army of gamma radiated super soldiers. 
I'm just going to come straight out of the gate and let you know The Incredible Hulk is my least favorite entry in the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe. I doubt this surprises those who have read any of my Marvel Cinematic Universe Films Ranked lists, because The Incredible Hulk finished dead last each of the three times I ranked the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies. So, why is it that I don't really like the movie?
Well, for starters, it's woefully generic and incredibly boring. Louis Leterrier directed the film, but failed to really give it a pulse or any semblance of energy. The cinematography, editing, and score are all by the numbers, and the entire film feels dreary and dour, with virtually no charisma or levity to keep it afloat. It's really no wonder Marvel decided to team the green giant up with Thor to set off some sparks in the upcoming Thor: Ragnarok. The entire time we're essentially shadowing Banner as he's on the run. There's the occasional acceptable action sequence, but nothing of interest.
There are certainly good MOMENTS, but they are fleeting, few, and far between this slogging beast of a movie. The action sequences are kind-of cool to watch because you're watching two monsters beating the tar out of one another, but there's nothing notable about the fight that enables it to stand apart from any other super-powered smackdown.  
Even the visual effects seems off, as Hulk and Abomination looked more like video game characters than tangible, hulking monstrosities. I know the effects are from 2008... but if the effects in 2008's Iron Man can hold up to today's standards, then it shouldn't be a stretch to say The Incredible Hulk's should as well. I'm simply not a fan of the character designs for Hulk or Abomination at all for that matter. I realize the two are supposed to look ridiculously ripped, but I think their veins are excessively accentuated (if that makes any sense). Also, it bothers me that Hulk has his trademark shaggy hair, yet his hair is shorter and styled completely differently every time he reverts back to Bruce Banner... That criticism probably leans more towards Edward Norton, but I don't see why the vfx team couldn't have factored Norton's appearance into the Hulk's aesthetic either.
The reason I think a solo Hulk film has yet to work is simply that it's about a man who desperately doesn't want to change into the Hulk. When you consider the framing that screenwriter Zak Penn had to work around, then the script's not too bad. However, the story loses focus in its mad scramble to get Banner from Point A to Point B. There's scarce explanation as to how Banner possibly managed to cross international borders without alerting authorities, and there are plenty of logical inconsistencies in how everything fits together.
None of this alleviated by the film's bland central romance either, because the actors have absolutely no chemistry with one another. Edward Norton is an okay Bruce Banner because he succeeds in translating the darker sides of the character with his take on PTSD and the inherent need to repress his abilities, but he fails to imbue the character with any charm whatsoever. Therefore, you're not really invested in him as a person much at all. Liv Tyler on the other hand, could not have possibly put forth a more insipid performance. Her character is just so... vanilla. There's absolutely no substance to the character in the screenplay, and it really shows when Tyler fails to make anything out of it.
If there's one redeeming factor though, it would be William Hurt's General 'Thunderbolt' Ross. Hurt's really the only one among the cast that makes the most of the material given to him, imbuing Ross with a uncompromising gruffness and determination. His motivation's are wonky, but the character as a whole leapt straight off the comic pages.
Meanwhile, Tim Roth also does what he can with Emil Blonsky's resolute hunger for power. However, there's really not much opportunity for Roth to dig beneath the surface level of his thinly-sketched character, and it all falls to the wayside when he becomes Abomination and the film becomes a conventional CG-smackfest.
The Incredible Hulk should have been a smashing success, but instead wound up being one of Marvel's most forgettable franchise installments because it failed to break convention.

Film Assessment: D+

Wednesday, January 4, 2017

'Collateral Beauty' Review

In Collateral Beauty successful advertising executive Howard suffers the devastating loss of his six year old daughter and Howard becomes out of touch with reality as he begins writing letters to Death, Time, and Love. Collateral Beauty's trailers lead you to believe that Howard is then visited by the physical embodiments of Death, Time, and Love but what actually takes place is quite different. I'm not sure if this will be considered a spoiler or not since this is revealed within twenty minutes and the setup of the film.

**Beginning of "spoilers"** 

If you're still reading then I assume you've either seen the movie already or simply don't care so without further ado, Howard's friends and co-workers decide they need to take action to snap Howard back to reality because they are at risk of losing their jobs and Howard is broken over the loss of his daughter. They then hire a private investigator who discovers a few of Howard's letters to Death, Time, and Love and the three friends hire three actors to pretend to be the physical manifestations of Death, Time, and Love so they can film him talking to them, digitally remove the actors, and show it to the executive board in hopes of getting Howard booted from his position for being mentally incapacitated. Yes, the plot of the movie is that stupid and these "friends" are total jerks but believe or not that's not even the actual plot twist of the movie. 
**End of "spoilers"**

I won't spoil the twist but it makes literally no sense and contradicts earlier events of the film. I went into Collateral Beauty expecting some sort of amalgamation of A Christmas Carol and Inside Out where a man is guided by physical representations of Death, Time, and Love but instead got something completely different and it was for the worse with this film's biggest problem being its structure and the script written by Allan Loeb.
Instead of being centered around a grieving Will Smith, the film spreads its focus among the entire ensemble attempting to give each character a substantial character arc when the supporting characters didn't really need one. Loeb also leaves out anything regarding Howard's daughter Olivia to avoid ruining a twist that didn't really HAVE to be the film's big twist and the result is that it's hard to truly sympathize with Howard's situation.
While there are well intentioned ideas and messages included in Collateral Beauty, the screenplay's just a mess from beginning to end. Collateral Beauty has gotten some pitiful reviews and I've seen some say it's one of the worst films of 2016 but I didn't think it was quite that bad. The film's well-shot and looks nice throughout thanks to Maryse Alberti and even though director David Frankel allowed this mess to happen, he does manage to draw out some sufficient performances from the all-star ensemble.
These accomplished actors bring forth some decent turns but don't expect awards worthy work or career best performances. Will Smith showcases a lot of emotional range but not enough time is spent around Howard to make you truly care about anything he's going through and Smith seems just out of touch as his character (take from that what you will). Edward Norton, Michael Peña, Kate Winslet are Howard's friends and co-workers Whit, Claire, and Simon, Naomie Harris plays grief support group leader Madeleine, and Keira Knightley, Jacob Latimore, and Helen Mirren bring forth the manifestations of Love, Time, and Death respectively. 
All these accomplished actors fail to make their characters resonate, the performances aren't bad but everything's played at surface level and that's not really what should be drawn from actors of this caliberEverything put into Collateral Beauty is well-intentioned, but its idiotic story is a total waste of A-list talent that make it feel like a sappy Lifetime movie.

Film Assessment: D

Thursday, August 18, 2016

'Sausage Party' Review

I walked out of Sausage Party wondering what in the world I had just watched, and that's coming from someone who had a general idea what he was in for. Essentially it's about marketplace food discovering what actually happens to food when it's purchased and the insane shenanigans that follow.
At it's core, Sausage Party clearly mocks many tropes of Disney/Pixar style animation opening with an outrageously humorous song composed by Alan Menken, known for scoring Disney films such as Beauty and the Beast (1991), Aladdin, and Hercules, and borrowing the central idea of living inanimate objects and their lives from Toy Story but trust me, they are distinctly different in terms of appropriateness and quality.
Sausage Party is a raunchy animated comedy, and I feel that's something that's important and should be expressed if you plan on watching it, because this film doesn't hold back on it's jokes and crosses the line fairly quickly with no plans to tread backwards. If you are easily offended by racial stereotypes or inappropriate humor, this is not the comedy for you. Greg Tiernan and Conrad Vernon's direction lends itself perfectly to the filthy comedy as every creative choice is certainly a bold one.
The animation is sub-par and never near the heights of Disney, Pixar, Dreamworks, or even Illumination Entertainment but that's no surprise considering Sausage Party had a budget of $19 M and the Sausage Party's aesthetic isn't the film's primary focus. It's purpose is to make you laugh and Sausage Party's biggest hurdle for me was that it's rarely as it funny as makes itself out to be.
The screenplay from writers Kyle Hunter, Ariel Shaffir, Seth Rogan, and Evan Goldberg offers up some gags that had me laughing hysterically but not every joke landed. There are some sequences that offer up plenty of shock and awe as things unfold that are absolutely bananas, so I can give them props for daring to go that far, but at the same time I was very weirded out by it all. Surprisingly the screenplay does offer up some fairly smart social, political, and religious commentary, but once again not as high brow as it'd like to be since it juxtaposes these messages with some grungy jokes and racial stereotypes for cheap laughs.
However with that all being said, Sausage Party boasts a massive ensemble of comedic talent including Seth Rogan, Kirsten Wiig, Jonah Hill, Michael Cera, Edward Norton, Paul Rudd, Bill Hader, and Nick Kroll along with many, many more brilliant comedians. Some voices are instantly recognizable while others had me on the ropes and part of the fun of seeing the film is trying to figure out which celebrity talent is associated with which character so I won't discuss their performances individually.
Overall, Sausage Party is definitely not for everyone, but if you love raunchy comedy this will scratch your itch. Oh and please DON'T bring your children to see Sausage Party as it may appear to be a cute animation, it's nothing of the sort. I also didn't find the experience to be heightened by seeing it in a theater so if you're iffy on Sausage Party, wait for the home media release and check it out then. In conclusion, Sausage Party is a brilliant parody, but only a passable comedy. It offers up enough unique humor for at least one viewing, but honestly I don't feel as though I would ever watch Sausage Party again.

Film Assessment: C-

Saturday, July 30, 2016

Throwback Thursday Review: 'The Bourne Legacy'

Sorry for the delayed review but I was very busy due to a multitude of things. This week I'm reviewing The Bourne Legacy to tie into the release of Jason Bourne, although from what I've heard Jason Bourne isn't connected to this installment whatsoever and rather serves as a sequel to The Bourne Ultimatum. Within the next week you can expect reviews of Nerve and Jason Bourne in addition to my Throwback Thursday Review of The Dark Knight and my full in depth non-spoiler review of Suicide Squad. The following week I will review the older incarnation of Pete's Dragon to tie in with Disney's new live action reboot and the subsequent week will begin my series of Throwback Thursday Reviews of the Harry Potter films where I will be rereading the books prior to watching each installment every two weeks till Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is released this November. 


'The Bourne Legacy' Review


The Bourne Legacy is a weird fit in the Bourne franchise because it clearly wants to play in the same sandbox as the Bourne Trilogy, but it can't really play with the same toys, Matt Damon's Bourne and director Paul Greengrass' vision. The Bourne Legacy wanted to spinoff from the Bourne Trilogy (The Bourne IdentityThe Bourne Supremacy, and The Bourne Ultimatum) and setup Jeremy Renner as a the new leading man, and in doing so forcibly ties itself to the Bourne Trilogy in every way possible by plastering Jason Bourne's face on news reports, speaking his name just about every ten minutes and even going as far as to recruit many of the same actors from Ultimatum to make brief cameos to hammer home that this film is set concurrently
The points aforementioned are what restrict Legacy from it's full potential. I feel as though it were initially pitched as a new action franchise but that didn't bode over well so they decided to try to force it into the Bourne franchise with mixed results. Tony Gilroy, writer behind Identity, Supremacy, Ultimatum, and Legacy, steps up to direct and his vision was very murky. The screenplay formulated by Tony Gilroy and his brother Dan Gilroy is more convoluted than the Bourne Trilogy as government officials are extremely vague when discussing anything regarding this new super soldier program leading me to believe that they were simply holding it off for a big reveal.
However, this wasn't the case as there are a multitude of plot points left unaddressed and normally this wouldn't bother me but I know this installment isn't receiving a sequel (Jason Bourne doesn't qualify) and the story was so muddled that I had virtually no idea what the significance of anything occurring onscreen was and how these events really impacted the characters so an explanation behind some of those vague government programs would have been appreciated.
While Legacy's storytelling is mediocre, the action is a cut-above yet feels all too reminiscent of the vigorous action showcased in previous installments. My issue with Legacy's action is that no action set piece dared to try anything new and it feels as though it's ripping off it's own franchise. Sure, each previous Bourne film included visceral hand to hand combat scenes and exhilarating car chases but at least the Bourne Trilogy managed to inject freshness into them, making the action feel unique and differentiating from what has come before. The cinematography hinders Legacy even more thanks to an overdose of shaky-cam, and not to good effect, detracting from the action onscreen while making it difficult to watch.
Last but not least, the performances in this film range from clearly in-this-for-the-paycheck-to-perfectly fine. 2010-2012 was a weird period where quite a few blockbuster action franchises were poising Jeremy Renner to lead them, but each one just decided it wasn't going to work and moved forward either without him or instead utilizing him in a supporting capacity. Jeremy Renner makes for a great black ops agent in Aaron Cross thanks to his peak physicality and fierce intensity but he's no Bourne.
Damon's Bourne proved to be a much more compelling character as an highly skilled amnesiac whereas Renner's Cross is simply exceptional because he took some pills. Now on that note, I'm sure comparisons will be drawn to patriotic super soldier Captain America but I think the difference between the two is character. Captain America has a golden heart while Cross doesn't really seem to care about much aside from himself. Rachel Weisz plays Cross' damsel in distress Dr. Marta Shearing, who Cross must save NUMEROUS times and she's quite fine in the role but not a particularly amusing love interest.
Edward Norton is an actor that I admire and have the upmost respect for as he has turned in plenty of fascinating roles for abstract characters, but he's solely in this film for the paycheck. Norton does relatively little in the two hour fifteen minute runtime, isolated in a black ops operation center and while the previous Bourne films included similar antagonists, those characters verbally sparred with Bourne making for an interesting dynamic. Norton's Eric Byer only interests with Cross once or twice though and neither time was remotely interesting. Also I was quite pleased to observe an appearance from Oscar Isaac, now of Star Wars: The Force Awakens fame.
In conclusion, The Bourne Legacy is an entertaining action flick, but fails to deliver on the quality audiences have come to expect from a Bourne film with muddled story telling, derivative action sequences, and sub-par performances. Here's to hoping Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon can course-correct with Jason Bourne.

Film Assessment: D

Tuesday, March 1, 2016

Recollection Reflection Review: 'Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue Of Ignorance)'

Surprise! I'm introducing a new form of review today called a "Recollection Reflection Review" or a "Triple R". Since I've started my reviews, I've continually grown in my ability to analyze film and recently I've wanted to develop an interesting way to go back and revisit some of these reviews to properly assess the film hence the creation of "Triple R". As the title of these reviews suggest, I will Recollect how I initially felt about the film, reflect on if my opinion changed over time and properly review the film. "Triple R" will work a little differently than Throwback Thursday Reviews because there won't be a set day that I do a "Triple R" as it will be a bit spontaneous but always relate to either a new film release or some current event. "Triple R" also won't be a weekly installment but rather about once or twice a month. "Triple R" will always be of a film I've previously reviewed as older films I haven't reviewed are more reserved for Throwback Thursday Reviews. This "Triple R" is for Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue Of Ignorance) because the Oscars were this week and felt it would be a perfect opportunity to revisit last year's Best Picture winter that's one of my favorite films.

'Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue Of Ignorance)' Review


Nominated for: Best Picture, Best Director; Alejandro González Iñárritu, Best Actor; Michael Keaton, Best Supporting Actor; Edward Norton, Best Supporting Actress; Emma Stone, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Sound Editing, and Best Sound Mixing.
Won: Best Picture, Best Director; Alejandro González Iñárritu, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Cinematography.

Recollection- Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue Of Ignorance) Review
Reflection- My opinion of Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue Of Ignorance) hasn't really changed since I've seen it and I don't expect it to since I have a vast mount of respect for the filmmaking behind it as well as the film itself.
Review- Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue Of Ignorance) tells the fictional story of Riggan Thomson, a former blockbuster star best remembered for portraying the superhero Birdman, who now looks to direct, write, and star in his own Broadway show to prove he's not a washed up celebrity. Alejandro González Iñárritu, who won his first Best Director Academy Award for this film, stretches the boundaries of filmmaking by creating a film that's scenes are stitched together seamlessly as though it was all filmed in one continuous take. Iñárritu's vision made for what seems like a two hour long tracking shot thanks to such clear editing and camerawork. This was brought to life thanks to Iñárritu's collaboration with cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki. The sequences not only appear to be one long take, but also involve a lot of camera movement. This movement manages to simultaneously maintain focus on the story and allow for some gorgeous shots. The film not only has stunning cinematography, terrific direction, but also has a fantastic story and spectacular performances. The talented A-list cast is lead by Keaton, who is just exceptional. Keaton gets to demonstrate a full range playing a conflicted man in Riggan Thomson, whose past is constantly haunting him, where Keaton as Birdman makes a few hallucinatory appearances. Keaton is supported by Emma Stone and Edward Norton, who both are given rich characters with their own respective baggage. Other notable performances included Zach Galifianakis as Keaton's manager and Naomi Watts as one of Thomson's cast members in the production who both are serviceable in their capacity but by no means scene-stealers. All of these elements weave together to make a spectacular film and Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue Of Ignorance) certainly held up to how I remembered it and I still feel it was deserving of its Best Picture victory last year.

Film Assessment: A+

Friday, January 23, 2015

'Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue Of Ignorance)' Review

Nominated for: Best Picture, Best Director; Alejandro González Iñárritu, Best Actor; Michael Keaton, Best Supporting Actor; Edward Norton, Best Supporting Actress; Emma Stone, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Sound Editing, and Best Sound Mixing.
Won: Best Picture, Best Director; Alejandro González Iñárritu, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Cinematography.

I loved this film and how Birdman looked as though it was taken in one long continuous take. Michael Keaton gives an amazing performance. Edward Norton and Emma Stone both also give great performances with a lot of depth for their respective characters. I really liked the under lying themes present in Birdman as well as the cinematography and the screen writing for the film. I can not stress how great this film is and I recommend you check it out when you have the chance.

Film Assessment: A+