Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Crwthod A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

ElMaruecan82 Miles Davis said "You can tell the history of jazz in four words: Louis Armstrong. Charlie Parker." I bet Armstrong is the one all jazz non-experts will immediately think of... and I'm no jazz expert.I wish I was but I'm not... but what even my feeble ear could gather from Clint Eastwood's "Bird" is that Parker's music was jazz all right but something more... or let's just say something else. It doesn't exactly ring a bell but it reminds me of the kind of music we hear everyday, it's modern but jazzy enough to fly above today's modernity. The word "Bebop" wasn't used in the film, I got it from Wikipedia but I don't want to be technical in a field I don't master. I'll say with all humility that I liked the music, no matter the branding.But it's one thing to make a movie about a musical genius and another to show you the psychological struggles of the artist. Oh, he wasn't misunderstood and his talent was acknowledged by his peers but the man, how to put it, took himself in a path of self-destruction that is hard to understand. The film doesn't imply that the drugs he took to ease the pain of his ulcers influence his style but they didn't impair his talent either, substance abuse was as much part of his legend as the cymbal thrown at his feet in that humiliating day where he couldn't adapt to the chords changes of tunes.The flying cymbal is used as a poetic leitmotif symbolizing Bird's epiphany, the pivotal moment where he decided to work his way out, not to become the best, but to be able to adapt to every possible tune. I don't know what it means technically but I can tell it means a lot of work, in fact, the kind of work that is so overwhelming in content that it ends up opening new breeches of creativity. Parker would become so good he'd invent new forms of improvisations, new sounds that were pivotal in the evolution of jazz music. And he was loved and admired by his peers, the audience and the woman who was his number one fan, Chan Parker. The relationship between Chan and Charlie is like nothing you've seen before, it's so complex and unpredictable that it can only be real, it's full of heart, passion, tragedy and the same dedication to music. She knew him from a friend, "is he cute?" she asked, "no, but you're gonna like him". I said I was no musical expert but sometimes, I could just tell how good Parker was from the eyes of Chan, he had won her from the start and the courting phase of their relationship was only a matter of 'how to put it'. Chan was still frustrated that a man with such a capability of creativeness could be so lacking in basic interactions. But there's no doubt he's the man of her life, no matter how many conquests he had. And that's a key aspect of Parker's life, people 'forgave' him, drugs, women, coming late, not honoring his schedules, if anything, his talent was his one saving grace. And Dizzy Gillespie (Joe E. Wright), third major 'player' in the film, realizes Parker is destroying himself with drugs and lack of structure, but he also knows that jazz is the kind of music that needs these destructive souls, he knows Parker will die earlier, and will be a legend, but Bird's a martyr while he's a reformer, jazz needs both, constructors and "deconstructors", leaders and drifters, music needs rules and freedom.And "Bird" is a fascinating non-linear immersion in the drifting of one of jazz' most blessed souls, from his spectacular debut to his slow downfall and the way he never ceases to attract crowds and fans, there's a wonderful sequence set in the Old South where he took a Jewish saxophonist Red Rodney (Michael Zelniker) and presented him as an albino, it's for touches like this or the jazz playing during the Jewish wedding that you realize how life isn't a matter of the number of years you lived but how they're lived. When Parker's own life ends, the coroner states his age at 64, he was thirty years too many, but many lives are longer yet with a lesser legacy.I said that I didn't want to use data from websites for this review but one bit of information I found interesting is that there was no visual footage of the artist, so Eastwood had to use recordings and adapt them electronically to the movie so the sound we could hear would really come from Parker's old records (some borrowed from Chan Parker herself). That's how te film won the Oscar for Best Sound and it says a lot about the perfectionism that drove Eastwood, you know when he makes personal movies, he always hits the right chord, ever since "Play Misty for Me", Eastwood showed that he took music personally and the film ends with a fitting dedication to all the musicians in the world.I shouldn't say musicians in the world, because sometimes musicians recreate the world through the movement of their fingers, lips or the infinite brain capacity to adapt, Parker was known to have an intellectual approach to the music and even without perceiving it, I could understand it... and admire it. "Bird" is a movie that can make you feel such abstractions and I think it has a lot to do with the powerhouse performances of both Forest Whitaker and Diane Venora, snubbed by the Oscars and I mean it."Bird" is a rather dark film, mostly set at a nighttime but there's a fire burning inside, and for all the sadness carried in Parker's eyes, we know that there's joy and lust for life devouring his heart. Time to end this review before I sound too corny, but watch "Bird" is a solid jazz drama and a fine tribute to one of the best...

dbdumonteil Clint Eastwood, a figurehead in American cinema is also a jazz lover and connoisseur. It's no wonder that he was thrilled to bits to the idea to shoot a film on one of the jazz legends: Charlie Parker, a prodigious as well as tormented virtuoso. In France, it's this film which definitely made the most stubborn newspapers ditch the following epithets: "fascist", "macho", "racist" which stuck to Eastwood for a long time, especially since the "Dirty Harry" saga. They seemed to have forgotten that Eastwood was and still is a filmmaker whose richness of inspiration is solid. And this legend had its admirers and supporters among some French critics and filmmakers including Jean-Luc Godard!If one can see the title and read the synopsis to have an idea of what we're going to watch, one figures that Eastwood prepared a cozy programmed scheme to tell Parker's rueful life and that he chronologically, sedately shot it. But the filmmaker turns the elements and rules of the biopic to his own advantage and to startling results. The very onset is deceptive. One can see Parker when he was a child and then for a short sequence as a teenager. These moments passed, Eastwood doesn't fear to subvert the rules of storytelling and time which are shattered. His film toys with past and present with sometimes (fortunately not often) an absence of points of reference. Hence, the interest of being very attentive during all the work. Maybe Eastwood chose this device to capture Charlie "Bird" Parker's tormented mind in disarray. Sometimes, the director disconcerts a little more by inserting flashes inside the flash-backs. And how somber is the cinematography (I strongly advise Eastwood's aficionados to watch this work all lights turned off for a lot of scenes take place at night and in dimly lighted places). This cinematography with dark colors harks back to the "films Noirs" of the forties and the fifties and was perhaps tapped to suggest that Parker eventually got a raw deal in spite of his genius for jazz music and his fate is sealed. Another option would be to have chosen this type of cinematography to enable to Eastwood to fully savor his passion for jazz which shows through the concerts and virtually any time a piece of jazz is heard.Eastwood lets his talent of director shine and installs as much as possible a stylish, personal style to develop his own vision of the musician and the man Parker. A real virtuoso who tried to catch these short moments of bliss during especially his concerts. But also, a tormented mind, haunted by demons who developed a drug and alcohol addiction. His decay, his trouble with his addictions, his woes (the death of her little girl) are broached and treated with reserve, a dash of sympathy and Eastwood shelves any moralizing attitude. I must also admit that the possible scenes I had expected from the film (wild mood swings maybe caused by drug and alcohol, feuds with the women he knew) are softened from my standpoint.With such an unusual construction which puzzled the audience back in 1988, this film was doomed to failure but it didn't stop it from meeting well-reviewed analyzes and to be showered with praise. The Cannes festival didn't make a mistake by attributing to Forest Whitaker, the prize for the Best actor, another good example of Eastwood's generosity towards his actors to let them hold more or equally meaty parts than his. This generosity will be more conspicuous in the following decade. In France, "Bird" was the first Eastwood film to get a nomination at the Césars in 1989 for the Best Foreign film. Subsequent works: "the Bridges of Madison County" (1995), "Mystic River" (2003) and "Million Dollar Baby" (2004) will also be in contention to get the Prize and the two last ones will (deservedly) hit the jackpot.This maverick biopic adds to Eastwood's canonical filmography as a director and his devotees as well as Parker's fans or any jazz fan shouldn't miss it. It's a novel piece of work in the biography genre and Eastwood won't think twice before thwarting codes of other cinematographic genres in the nineties with the revisionist "Unforgiven" (1992) or the superb "a Perfect World" (1993).

MisterWhiplash Clint Eastwood's direction was very suitable for the material in this film, dealing with subjects he cares much about (music, loners, risking on the edge), and his handle on Bird, for my money, was wonderful. It's not an easy film to take, and it asks a lot from one in the viewing (it's a big film, with a plot complex, but not confusing, but is rewarding for those with a good interest Charlie Parker and the days of 40's-50's jazz. It's arguable whether there might be flaws in some of the uses of symbolism or bits of dialog in Joel Oliansky's script. But it's strong points - Forest Whitaker's major breakthrough in the title role; the bountiful and superb collection of Parker songs on the soundtrack (with a fine score by Lennie Neuhaus); a keen eye for getting the atmosphere and lighting right by Eastwood - are worth the viewing. Like most films about musicians with demons in the back of their heads (i.e. Ray, The Doors, even Amadeus), there is a level of possible melodrama that has to be crossed. With Bird, Parker is an interesting subject with this, and is ultimately shown well to be redeemed by the music. Likely to become more appealing, or at least easier to take on a second viewing, Bird is a solid, inspiring movie, with a kind of feeling to it that is unique. A+

Dan DeVore A dark and atmospheric biopic on jazz legend Charlie Parker, who with his fast improvisational style formed the sub-genre of bebop. Clint Eastwood directed this movie with a heart and passion that reflects back to his own love of the music which he has carried with him all his life and played a role in all his work. Eastwood himself actually was fortunate to have seen Charlie "Bird" Parker play in when he was alive. The film chronicles his life and has a tight focus on his self destructive behavior and the music itself. Bird explores the highs and lows of his journey. Playing to a sold out house in Paris, playing alongside Dizzy Gillespie, and earning a respect that few other musicians have matched. In contrast we see his heroine addiction, his suffering and depression resulting in several suicide attempts, the death of his daughter, and his wife's loving struggle to help save a man who's ill-fate was inevitable and irreversible.Forest Whitaker plays Bird with a lot of heart and soul. Even though I have no idea if it was an accurate portrayal in capturing the man's nuances, Whitaker's interpretation was superlative. Equally as good was Diane Venora as Bird's wife, who found enough strength for the both of them and tried to hold the family together in an un-winnable battle. There's lots of rain, lots of dark nightclubs, lots of street lamps reflecting the soaked streets, and lots of feeling in this one. Having just watched another biopic, that one on Ray Charles, it's clear to see Eastwood's was the real deal, whereas Ray was merely decent. Grade: A+