Comments on: Analyze This: Why ‘Birdman’ Beat ‘Boyhood’ & More 2015 Oscar Fallout

By: jarworski

jarworski — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:07:58 +0000

I agree that\’s probably why Boyhood lost, because it had exactly that effect on me. I spent the whole film mildly interested, somewhat diverted. Outside of each time jump and the eye-opening realisation of such when you saw someone aged, I found it quite meandering. I realise of course this is part of the point, but it still made the somewhat obnoxious Birdman a better watch… if not a better film. Maybe. I don\’t know, Under The Skin was the best film of the year.

By: Ugh

Ugh — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:07:58 +0000

Boyhood is about people who never receive $160,000 gift bags for showing up to a show congratulating themselves.
Birdman is about people who go to shows where they receive $160,000 gift bags congratulating them on how awesome they are.
Pretty simple reasoning.

By: Pedro

Pedro — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:07:58 +0000

Julianne Moore had been nominated 4 times before "Still Alice" came along. The last year was 2002, with a double nomination for "The Hours" and "Far From Heaven". Prior to that it was "The End of the Affair" and "Boogie Nights".

By: Evi

Evi — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:07:58 +0000

Not my tempo. Were you rushing or dragging?!?

By: M.

M. — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:07:58 +0000

On the contrary, \’ugh\’. Birdman is about people who CHOSE NOT to go to those shows, and be real actors instead.

By: Lou Hill

Lou Hill — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:07:58 +0000

I love both movies but Boyhood has deep beautiful soul and Birdman has shallow well executed craftsmanship and ego looking for his soul. Boyhood is a game-changer and Birdman is a trend-changer. Great films to choose from, but the wrong film won. Not to mention 12 years in the making, it takes a lot of balls and courage to do that. I\’ll guarantee like Alejandro said that only time will tell and we know that time is already on Boyhood\’s side.

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:07:58 +0000

Boyhood should have won. After seeing both, I understand why Birdman won. It was a movie, essentially about the business. It has the stuff that voters like, but Boyhood is the greater cinematic achievement. Birdman has one-shot-esque takes but beyond that, the movie is a messy, egotistical, drug induced haze, that doesn\’t offer any sort of meaning. Boyhood covers the aspects and essence of its subject matter. People say it is cliche, but it really isn\’t. It\’s just how it is.

I have the same view with Argo. The movie, like Birdman, is great. Best picture winner? No. It is just a movie about the business in some capacity.

I don\’t think Birdman will be remembered in 10, 12, or 20 years. I don\’t even think his next project will muster the same attention (or acclaim) that Birdman received. Boyhood, however, I think will age better. I\’m not saying the film will be remembered for centuries, but the overall achievement of the style, content, and its overall true-to-life themes are the reasons why Boyhood will stick out in the minds of many.

By: Bob Dole

Bob Dole — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:07:58 +0000

It is rather confusing how people thought Budapest had Original Screenplay locked up when it actually was always behind Birdman. The latter won the Golden Globe and Critics Choice, but was deemed ineligible for the WGA, where it would have won. Budapest was never in the lead for the Oscar, so it was absolutely no surprise that it lost.

By: Austin

Austin — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:07:58 +0000

I think Gone Girl deserved more love. If Gone Girl and Lego Movie had been up for more awards, I can guarantee the viewership would have been higher. Shame, shame.

By: Dave P

Dave P — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:07:58 +0000

Birdman is simply a better movie than Boyhood. This article felt like a defense for why Boyhood lost, \’cause IndieWire was talking it up so much. And yes, Under the Skin should have been nominated. And no, the Oscars should never be about what does the best at the box office. I\’m always complaining about the "politics" of the Oscars, and I, for once, felt like they at least got the winners right this year.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:07:57 +0000

Give me a break! THIS is the fifth IndiWire CRY CRY CRY News why Boyhood didn\’t won the oscar. Its enough now? Birdman is a better film in total, thats why it won.

Now cut if off.

By: Bonite Ende

Bonite Ende — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:07:57 +0000

The poor ratings have little to do with the nominated films. The jokes are stupid. Cut them. Cut the host in fact. There will never be another Bob Hope. Cut the singing, and cut the tributes. INSTEAD show LENGTHY CLIPS from the movies nominated, so that even if you did NOT see the film, you\’ll want to after the ceremony.

By: Zeugirdor Mann

Zeugirdor Mann — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:07:57 +0000

Sorry, but this article is so full of BS. This is only justifying (in disagreement) the final outcome of the Academy Awards. If "Birdman" had been the loser, I\’m sure Mr. Perez would have written things along the lines of how \’Boyhood\’ won on the account of winning the sentimentality of the Academy, while \’Birdman\’ was too \’experimental\’ and \’out-there\’ for them. And the same goes for justifying the rest of the winners (e.g. \’"Julianne Moore finally received her "Lifetime Achievement" Best Actress award in 2015"; "many assumed “Birdman” would be [Michael Keaton\’s] form of "Lifetime Achievement" award… Redmayne was awesome and ‘Birdman’ is already taking enough major slots on my awards ballot” – see the contradiction here!). And what about this: "the age old adage is that whatever wins Best Editing wins Best Picture. That’s almost always the case, a few anomalies aside, but 2015 through a big wrench in that formula because “Birdman,” which ostensibly featured “no cuts” wasn’t nominated for Best Editing". I can\’t believe these are the actual arguments used to justify all the wins. And what is it with Indiwire\’s insistence on pushing "Under the Skin" every chance they get, even when the article is totally unrelated to that film?

By: Magnus

Magnus — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:07:57 +0000

for once they got it right: Boyhood is totally overrated (I liked the first hour and was bored out of my skull by the time it finally ended) and Birdman was a stunning piece of filmmaking

By: Milano

Milano — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:07:57 +0000

The script of "Birdman" wasn\’t eligible for the WGA award. It might have won had it been.

By: jm

jm — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:07:57 +0000

All will be forgotten, except Boyhood.

By: constance

constance — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:07:57 +0000

"Moore’s good performance in the otherwise ho-hum “Still Alice” was her best, so she was due. It’s as simple as that." Truer words were never written. It\’s a shame she won in such a Lifetime TV movie, she deserved it a few years ago but it often shakes out this way. In her resume of films, Still Alice will be forgotten, but she will still have her Oscar.

By: Rich Corle

Rich Corle — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:07:57 +0000

Boyhood din\’t win because it is an absolutely abysmal and dull film devoid of anything remotely interesting or unique (besides the gimmick).

By: Simon P

Simon P — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:07:57 +0000

Really disappointed with Julianne Moore winning, sure she is a great actress, but Still Alice was a bad movie and her performance in it was mediocre at best. Out of the nominees Rosamund Pike deserved the little gold man, but like always, rarely does the right person win.

By: Dryer

Dryer — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:07:57 +0000

That\’s a creepy BOYHOOD poster – looks like a late 90s serial killer movie poster

By: chad

chad — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:07:57 +0000

The fact that you refer to a movie as intense as Still Alice as \’ho-hum\’ somewhat invalidates your credibility. Also compared to her previously nominated performances this was way more devastating and intense.

By: Leo

Leo — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:07:57 +0000

Still Alice was ho hum, and the proof is that it was never nominated for best direction or best script by any group handing out awards. Only Julianne\’s performance was recognized in an otherwise ordinary film. And frankly, many actresses could have played that role, she didn\’t do anything unique. Yes, she was good, but it was the part. You would have felt sympathy for anyone playing that role. It\’s really a shame she won for such a substandard movie.

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:07:57 +0000

Under the skin??? Worst movie of 2014!

By: norah

norah — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:07:57 +0000

I think that hw just doesnt get it. there is a reason why the ratings were down so much- none of the movies were the usual big hits the only one was american sniper – birdman and boyhood seemed to be just self indulged type of movies that i for sure will not go and watch again. perhaps the oscars sd think seriously as to how they vote for these movies or even directors. julianne was always going to win because she not only gave a good performance but she had been nominated before and always lost. eddie was going to win because he played a tough and physically demanding role which the academy always favours – simmons and patricia a were frontrunners from the beginning. either the academy does something radically different not only in the voting process but for the ceremony itself nobody is remotely interested in it.

By: John

John — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:07:57 +0000

Boyhood didn´t won because it´s nothing more tham pretencious crap. The Oscar voters new that and for once in many, many, many years they voted for the real Best Picture that was nominated. Something didn´t happend since Slumdog Millionare