Everything Wrong With Birdman In 13 Minutes Or Less

Everything Wrong With Birdman In 13 Minutes Or Less

Birdman is a pretty great movie, with a lot of unique touches. We love it. But like all movies, it’s got sins, and we felt bound to point them out and count them.

Thursday: Sins of a movie from the early 1970’s.

Remember, no movie is without sin! Which movie’s sins should we expose next?!

Podcast: http://soundcloud.com/cinemasins
Sins Video Playlist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy-v4c4is-w&list=PLMWfZxj1nTkQBy4AeRGG4xH5d2IIApNPj
Tweet us: http://twitter.com/cinemasins
Reddit with us: http://reddit.com/r/cinemasins
Tumble us: http://cinema-sins.tumblr.com
Call us: 405-459-7466
Jeremy’s book: http://theablesbook.com

You may also like...

80 Responses

  1. Ali Yaghi says:

    *Vulture before becoming Vulture*

  2. Vincent Beers says:

    This artsy movie should go art itself

    • Vincent Beers says:

      pff sure, keep telling yourself that

    • John Doe says:

      Yeah a moron like you would not understand the concept of cinema. You just want car chases and explosions. I got a tip for you, Michael Bay…

    • Vincent Beers says:

      Actually a moron would miss the fact my original statement was a joke based on something Jeremy said in the video, and I’m aware of what art is (I actually am an artist), but saying “every movie is art” is just sad, because some are just trash.

      So excuse me dumb ass, but you missed the joke twice. Now go find someone else to argue with who gives a fuck what you think.

    • LifelessHawk says:

      Vincent Beers Every movie is art, but not all art is good. You cannot say that any art is objectively good, because what is and is not good is based upon the subjection of the person who views it. You say you’re an artist, but an artist should know that every painting is art no matter the quality, or the cost of the painting.

    • Louis Mas says:

      That’s the modern vision of Art, but the classic vision would not agree with what you’re saying

  3. peinDrumline says:

    Boyhood deserved best picture over this

    • sʇɐʎnıɟʇʎ&ɟnɔʞlıɟǝ says:

      *IT TOOK 12 YEARS TO MAKE* so it must be good.
      Regardless of the unlikable and boring people, the drab presentation, and the pointlessness of making it.

      Versus a movie thats a cinematic masterpiece of technical detail.

      Has interesting characters, presents itself beautifully with equally beautiful camera work, focuses on telling a story and uses it’s “one take” style as the gimmick to Oscar-bait, rather than focusing entirely on the gimmick and slapping a half baked story on top so you can try to convince people its an actual movie and not old home movie footage.

    • Alexiz001 says:

      sʇɐʎnıɟʇʎ&ɟnɔʞlıɟǝ ^^THIS…so freaking much.

    • 999SickBoy666 says:

      Fuck – here I was, hoping no one else made a 12 YEARS TO MAKE-RLM joke 🙁

    • sʇɐʎnıɟʇʎ&ɟnɔʞlıɟǝ says:

      To be fair . . . it took me 12 years to make.

    • 999SickBoy666 says:

      Goddamned time-traveling sʇɐʎnıɟʇʎ&ɟnɔʞlıɟǝs, always retconning their goddamned posts!!
      (yes, that’s a Genisys reference on a Boyhood comment under a Birdman related video… so what? 😀 )

  4. Ashley David says:

    It was 1992 , man .

    That means it must have been batman . . . I mean , “Birdman
    Returns ” , right ? ?!

    This is super – awesome .

  5. JP Provins says:

    Is it just me, or should the people at CimemaSins be put on retainer by movie studios to review the movies before they are released in an attempt to avoid many of these sins?

    • Complex Matt says:

      JP Provins They’ve said they don’t really have any interest in such things because it’s all just an act.

    • JP Provins says:

      But they said several times in this video that they are definitely real critics… at least that’s what I heard.

    • StormWolf says:

      No, I’m pretty sure he said they *weren’t* critics, but assholes.

    • Quod Deum Immortalem says:

      Yes, just you

      We others want the satire and comedy that comes with the sins

    • Joe Tairei says:

      CS points out some super nitpicky things that 99.9% of viewers would never notice unless they replay the DVD five times at half speed. But occasionally they point out a huge plot hole that tugs at our consciousness like that “itch” you feel in the Matrix that something’s not quite right. That’s the thing the studios should be hiring them to fix before release. But then it would cut into CS views, so probably they like things just as they are!

  6. Michael Sims says:

    _”Me & him share a vagina”_ Is a clever way of calling him a _pussy,_ or possibly a _bitch,_ or she’s aying he’s sensitive, so he understands her more accurately as he’s practically a woman, himself, maybe? I assumed the latter when i initially watched it.

    • Michael Sims says:

      Ok bro, you’re right. But settle down. No need to go calling strangers _retards_ in regards to something tons of people who’ve seen the film obviously missed, or misinterpreted. A simple correction would have sufficed. But props on proving to everyone that while you may not be _retarded,_ you’re inappropriately aggressive in situations that don’t _really_ call for it, & you like to hoard your knowledge over those who seemingly know less than you about a given topic,*AKA,* what many would deem an insufferable, pretentious prick.

    • BlueFox94 says:

      That and just simply that she and him are lovers who live together (hence how he knows the script for the play she’s in, i.e., Riggan’s play). A man and a woman “share a vagina” if the dude inhabits it with his private parts.

    • Damien Lacar says:

      I took it to me mean that he shared hers. That is to say it is hers but because they are together he feels entitled to it and so it is not hers but theirs. I thought she had to go fuck him almost like ok its your turn type thing.

    • Duke V says:

      @Michael Sims You must have a lot of time on your hands to think and write all this crap….The problem is that you can’t see my face and you can’t hear my tone,I was saying it sarcastically but ok…Nevertheless,I don’t think that making a simple observation can be deemed as being more knowledgeable…

    • Priscilla Jimenez says:

      Michael Sims that was my thought when I saw this vid (didn’t see film).

  7. Tanishq Kohli says:


  8. Cat Nandez says:

    Everything wrong with Ratatouille?

  9. Brian Dimatteo says:

    Need to sin either the last samurai like someone already said and or 3000 miles to Graceland!

  10. MariktheGunslinger says:

    Dude, where was this hilarious and witty Jeremy for the past year?

    • MariktheGunslinger says:

      Oh, I forgot about that. That explains the frequency of content.

      Look, I’m not hating. this channel’s success is deserved and I think it’s very funny. There’s just a level of bitterness I can’t stomach and I’m worried this channel might descend beneath it if left unchecked.

    • Jules Vox says:

      Yeah, I wasn’t hating either. I think the humor in this one was just right

    • Salah Eddine H says:

      MariktheGunslinger I partially agree with you. Some Cinemasins videos are hilarious. But others are infuriating when they’re doing a movie they were sure was crap before even watching it (see I, Robot, Sherlock Holmes, etc. I mean did they even WATCH I, Robot?)
      Alright. Anyway, good point about the unnecessary bitterness and the importance of actual jokes. Cheers.

    • z3r0hAm n0gAm3 says:

      The bitterness is the humor for me…I can’t stop watching… I ever watch ones I’ve over and over… Keep it bitter

    • Emilie Cohen says:

      CS videos about good movies are WAY better and more entertaining than videos about lousy movies (I don’t even watch most of those CS reviews).

  11. 2oothpick says:

    Fun Fact ; The Scene where Michael Keaton is rushing threw super dense New York sidewalk traffic in his *underwear* was not a staged setting. They couldn’t get the permits to restrict the area and use extras so they just ran the scene live via everyday New Yorkers who’re Unbenounced to what was happening. In turn almost every reaction you’re seeing like people filming and laughing are all legit reactions. There was actually a different street performance going on just off screen that was drawing a lot of attention and that’s when they filmed, so there would at least be enough room for them to move quickly.

  12. Thomas Chancey says:


  13. Jahnnoi Williams says:

    Everything wrong with Everything wrong with Birdman in less than 13 minutes

  14. Beaudoin Motorsports says:

    Oh this is weird, I just saw this movie yesterday. Granted, it was on FX so I didn’t get the whole experience.

    But I can tell you this, *WHAT THE HELL* this is Oscar Worthy?

    Michael Keaton is great, no question, but seriously. Strange movie.

    • Beaudoin Motorsports says:

      MarTin ShorLux would that make that comment Super Realism?

    • That1Guy says:

      Musical Stranger No, people want those things. They just don’t want to hear an actor whine about how criticism sucks and they have the worse, most unappreciated job ever.

    • 6235river says:

      Coolbillion It’s not about how hard the film was to make, it’s about the effort put into it matched with the success of aforementioned effort. You can put a bunch of work into the technical aspects of a film and the technique can still be shitty. Here, however, the hard work paid off as the film was technically solid. Taking that into account, it’s not too hard to understand why it won best picture. Storyline is only one facet of what makes a film great.

    • Hunter Collins says:

      the whole thing is taken in “one shot”

    • Alexiz001 says:

      Angel Pygs Exactly. I couldn’t agree more

  15. magellanthecat says:

    I hated this movie. The soundtrack was obnoxious, jarring, and designed to irritate. The dialog was a chain of ranting monologues, and the plot was a bunch of actors bitching about basically being actors. I turned this self-indulgent crap off after 20 minutes, which was 19 minutes too late. The actual BirdMan TV show or movies would have been much more interesting.

    • magellanthecat says:

      For anyone who wants to know my other gripes: Who am I supposed to care about? Which character? I don’t give a smeg about any of them. Note: this is not “who am I supposed to like.” Francis Urquart, Richard III (as depicted by Shakespeare), and Adolf Hitler (from The Bunker) are all rather despicable characters, but they are interesting and grab concern. There is no character who is remotely interesting in the first 20 minutes (or likely ever) in this movie. If I do not care about what happens to at least one character, the movie has failed. (Game of Thrones has the same problem: the only interesting character is Tyrion the Dwarf. All the other characters are either utterly scummy, busy trying to outscum everyone else, or too mindbogglingly innocent to survive in that world. 5 minutes of one good character is not worth 55 minutes of smegheads being vile for the sake of being vile.)
      As mentioned by AcePanzer: any movie about actors/acting/movie industry=Oscar Bait.

    • I think you are right, but says:

      This movie is shit. You are right, no one will tell you why this movie is good. They just accept it and accuse you of watching transformers. But i watched whole movie, at least i didn’t bought it.

    • the actual bajmahal says:

      Magellanthecat: Well… off the top of my head…1. Wizard of Oz…2. 2001: A Space Odyssey…3. Mulholland Drive…4. Deliverance…5. From Dusk Til Dawn…6. Psycho…7. Vertigo… 8. The Sixth Sense. There are plenty of movies that start out one way and then change part way through. Sometimes their titles/promo posters will tip you off — see Castaway — sometimes they won’t. There are websites, like WhatCulture (two titles on their list overlapped with my list), that even have whole lists of these types of films.Jason Schuler is right. You shouldn’t critique plot points you haven’t seen. It’s annoying. Just say that you didn’t like what little you did see and be done with it.

    • magellanthecat says:

      I would challenge some of those listed movies. Others I haven’t seen. Wizard of Oz changes from black&white to color, and the rest is Dorothy’s attempting to get home. Does it completely change what it is doing? No. 2001 has a long set-up, then a long middle, and a long twist ending, but it is still the same movie. Mulholland: don’t remember if I ever say it. Dusk til Dawn: yeha. Deliverance: never saw it. Psycho: nope. Surprise ending, but does not really completely change from the story it started with.

    • magellanthecat says:

      As for 20 minutes=movie: I worked for a few years with an independent movie festival. They were bombarded every year with submissions from every film student with delusions of grandeur, as well as talented people. Usually ended up with about 20x as much as we could actually show. We set a rule: we watch the first 10 minutes. If no one was interested in watching further, we didn’t. This let us weed through the deluge. Soon most of us started applying the same rule to anything else we watched. If we weren’t invested by the end of 10 minutes, we weren’t going to be. Some stretch a point to longer if a movie has a reputation for being good (as I did for Birdman and Whiplash, both of which I hated). I cannot think of a single instance where this rule has failed on the times I’ve tested it by sticking out a movie that I didn’t like by the cut-off time.

  16. sXeblues says:

    I thought I would love this movie, going into it… But, I kind of ended up hating it. To each their own and a bag of chips, I guess.

    • spklvr12 says:

      Yeah, it was just utterly uninteresting, with boring, awful characters and poor plot and everything kind of good was ruined a second later by something awful. Also the long transitions between each scene made the movie drag on for fucking ever.

    • Kaiwala23 says:

      Gotta be McCoy’s or i’ll cut your dick off

    • A bag of chips says:

      sXeblues Problem?

    • threepecs says:

      Kibate How else do you make money on what is clearly an artistic, metaphorical film? I guarantee you, 75% of the population would not have had an interest in this movie, even though it’s incredibly shot and written and absolutely deserving of an Oscar. They definitely intentionally pulled the wool over some eyes on purpose, but personally I’m fine with that.

    • Morna Burton says:

      OMG! Me too!

  17. G M C says:

    In the comments, you’ll find:
    – People trying to be critics.
    – People who were too scared to voice their opinion about the movie until Cinemasins made a video on it.

    That’s about it.

  18. Jim B. says:

    *I know Thursday you’re sinning an early 70’s movie, but can you do “Atomic Blonde” next week? Thanks!*

  19. Jason Edson says:

    whoa whoa whoa whoa….Cinema Sins has writers….and these are the best “jokes” you can come up with?

  20. Cebastian Wells says:

    SIN black panther

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *