Bird (1988)

The music in here is excellent and makes jazz appealing even to a non-jazz enthusiast like me. It better, because that's what the subject of the film is: jazz, and Charlie Parker, in particular. "Bird" was his nickname, and Parker was a good subject matter for a film - not a pleasant subject most of the time, but for jazz fans the man is a legend.

I thought the acting was good, especially by the two main people: Forest Whitaker, playing Parker, and Diane Venora as wife "Chan."

My major complaint was that it was too long. To make a film over 160 minutes when much of it is a "downer" it tough to sit through. It's generally a story about what can happen to a man who is addicted to drugs, which is what happened to this giant of jazz. That's the part of fhis life that is emphasized,, so it makes this movie a very long, sordid tale, not a happy one. Unless one is a big jazz aficionado, one viewing of this would be plenty.

Fmovies: If you like Jazz you can't 'not like' this movie. If you like Noir you will dig the overall look of it. My only problem is that Eastwood concentrates more on presenting the tragic side of Charlie parker's life and so we get a very dark and somber film.

While we do get glimpses of Parker as 'musician', Forest Whitaker's, Parker as 'junkie', tends to weigh down the story. If Eastwood had to choose between highlighting the story of 'The greatest jazz musician of all time' or 'The premature death of a self-destructive Junkie', It's obvious which route he chose to take...the easiest one.

Ultimately it becomes more a movie about Parker's relationship with his wife Chan, and less about Parker's relationship with Jazz. In my opinion, Clint doesn't really succeed at showing us why we should love the character of Bird and maybe this was not his intention; but if a separation of the personality (warts and all) and his art is necessary to show an honest depiction; then why not also highlight the music and allow it to speak for itself? In this case, by making it a more satisfying listening experience like Formans "Amadeus" or Tavernier's "Round Midnight". The way they allowed the music be THE lead character of the movie.

Still, the improved fidelity in the remix of the soundtrack makes some of these old recordings easier digestible for those who may be new to Parker's music. Incidentally, this is the best fidelity of Charlie Parker you'll find anywhere. On the whole this is not a bad movie; It is not a complete depress-fest like two other movies about drug induced pop culture icons: 'The Doors' or 'Sid & Nancy'. Indeed this movie has its moments. There's a scene where Parker (blowing on his sax) wakes up Dizzy in the middle of the night to improvise on 'Now's the Time'. I also love the scene where he takes a gig with Red Rodney to play at a Jewish wedding. I wanted more of this type of interaction with his fellow Jazzers!

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+

Bird fmovies. The story of jazz great Charlie Parker. The film follows his rise from clubs to records and follows him across tours, drug abuse, personal loss and his eventual death. At the time of his death at 34 he was so eaten up by drugs that the coroner assessed his age at 65.

This is a well put together film about a creative but flawed artist. The plot doesn't glamorise him too much, although it maybe sympathises a little with his addiction and doesn't show it quite as harshly as it could have done. That said he is a pretty unpleasant person when he isn't performing. The film focuses on his adult life, which is good as it saves us child actors running around and it means more time is spent on the important years. The covers a lot of time, but it doesn't feel rushed. His drug addiction is honestly handled and it shows both the ups and downs of his life as a user.

The direction is pretty good, it's obvious Eastwood likes his jazz, and he uses the clubs well getting a great sense of mood. Elements are quite funny and this tempers the more tragic side of his life well. Whittaker is excellent in the lead role, but Diane Venora as his wife is not as good. She doesn't totally carry her lines in the same way - she's OK but you feel like something is missing. The rest of the cast come and go - there are good performances all round from a mostly low-key cast. The main star is the music, and it's treated with a lot of respect with Eastwood giving it plenty of time and creating a good mood for it to work in.

Overall a tragic story well told with a good central performance and great music.

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+

I. feel that the person that wrote negative things about the movie "Bird" missed the point. He mentioned the fact that the movie didn't go into the interracial marrige of Charlie and Chan Parker. I for one am glad that it didn't. I hate movies that beat the audience over the head with the fact that people can't, won't,and don't except blacks and whites in relationships that are positive. I felt that even though Mr. Parker had an addiction to drugs and had a wondering eye at times, he truely loved his wife. Mrs Parker not only loved her husband the jazz musician but her husband the man and looked out for his well being as best she could. The movie never let me forget that he was an addict but it also showed his genious and creativity. I'd give it a 9 because there was an uneveness about it that made it less than pefect. I truely wished that they had shown more of how he interacted with other greats like Miles Davis and Art Blakey.