joangreg

I saw this movie AFTER it received the nine Academy Award nominations, expecting, at minimum, a film marginally enjoyable. What I viewed was a 2 hour long abomination. This monstrosity was obviously written by individuals whose sole purpose to "push the buttons" of the voting Academy elites that select the most notable films for the best picture, actor, etc… So, let us digest their decisions: 1. Best Picture. Really? What made this so wonderful? The supposed, uninterrupted sequence of events? A gimmick, where anyone viewing this tripe could tell where one scene actually ended when the actor(s) walked into a dark area. Very much a "one trick pony" of awfulness. The sad part is, this thing might actually win. Remember how "Shakespeare in Love" won out over "Saving Private Ryan"? 2. Best Actor. Michael Keaton. Yes; I must admit that Michael Keaton DOES deserve the nomination here. His performance is the only redeeming feature of this badness. 3. Best Supporting Actor: Edward Norton. Over the top, and a rather silly performance from an actor I actually admire. 4. Best Supporting Actress: Emma Stone. Why? This nomination makes no sense to me, because there are several in Hollywood who could have matched this performance; and, her minimal time on screen does not justify this! 5. Directing: Ah! The badness of this creation lends itself to why this nomination is unjustified. An example: When our main character is being followed by his alter ego. Notice that "the birdman" is actually shorter than the main character he represents! Bad! 6. Cinematography: Once again, why? The break movement from one scene to the next is easily spotted and forgettable from anyone paying attention. 7. Sound Editing: Perhaps the most hideous of all the nominations! I cannot tell you how irritating the "sound" in this movie was, mainly regarding the background noise of a street drummer banging away. Please, please do not put yourself through this! 8. Sound Mixing: Ditto! I actually developed a headache before the end of the film. 9. Writing Original Screenplay: Four individuals apparently conspired to create this "masterpiece". Their intentions were not towards any audience that would view it. They knew that it would appeal to the Academy elite, who would acclaim the film as a wonderful achievement, disregarding what, in truth, makes a great film. They would like to make us think their product is bold and original, but it is anything but. The characters are stereotypical; the plot is predictable and unoriginal (both my wife and I knew the ending half way through the film). Throw in some Psychobabble nonsense, and there you have it. No one will discuss this film a few years from now, and I believe anyone involved with its creation will deny their involvement. Come on! The "truth or dare" sequences alone should make anyone cringe, and fans of "The Walking Dead" know where these so-called writers originally got this idea. Insipid, and puerile! If you would really like to see a film based on a self-destructive character, go back in time and see "All That Jazz", starring Roy Scheider. Not my favorite, but memorable. Better yet, see Marlon Brando in "Burn!", or Peter Finch in "The Red Tent". Or, go back even further and enjoy Humphrey Bogart in "The Caine Mutiny". Now, that is acting with a memorable story!

What can I say? There is so much here to recommend this movie. 1. First, it appears to be historically accurate. 2. The cast is fantastic. OK: Enough with the numbers. We have an unusual setting (for any movie) where a man is in conflict with himself. He questions whether the decisions he made were the right ones, and continually brings "ghosts" from his past to judge him. Some are hostile, and others benign. But, I think that the "ghost" of Amundsen sums it up. "You must forgive yourself, and sleep". How many of us have made bad decisions, and have seconded guessed ourselves? Anyone who has been in a similar situation have the same feelings. Stop, and listen to the message here! This is the crux of the movie. Do not destroy yourself by "what ifs". Deal with your folly, and then carry on. Combat, survival, bad business decisions: So what? Press on. This is what makes this movie so great; the message.

First off, I have seen two versions of this film. Surprisingly, the first time I saw it was on late night TV, and recalling from memory it was shown in two parts. SUPERB! It was about four full hours, and the plot and character development both made sense. THEN, I saw it was to be released in the theater (hurrah, I thought!). No. The film was destroyed by too much editing. Needless to say, I thought this whole situation weird because I remember seeing the much superior TV version before seeing the Theater version. What I major disappointment that was! Anyhow, those who have only seen the short version may wonder why Marco starts out in the movie in a different uniform (I believe he and his brother, which you never see, were in the Italian army, or something like that) and why you sort of see the the French Lt. (who looks like Charles Bronson)around the beginning, but then he sort of fades out of the script. Once again, I recall that the Arabs actually attacked the oasis at the very beginning of the movie (as seen on TV) and he was a sole survivor: Then later he kills himself. I only saw the TV version once, but this is what I recall. TV version: 9.5 out of 10. Theater version: 6.5 out of 10. Wish I could find the full version!