Opiniones de usuarios

"Bird" traces the life of Charlie Parker, a 1940's soloist jazz great whose improvisation abilities led him to become one of the most acclaimed figure in his own lifetime… However, his self-destructive behavior and association with drugs and alcohol caused him to die before he could fully comprehend the public appreciation of his genius…

Eastwood worked with a cast of relative unknown stars, and managed to create an entire period piece on the relatively low budget show…

Sensitively acted, visually designed, this dramatic story of the troubled life of a man of tremendous warmth and compassion, Eastwood delivers a compelling portrait of an artist with an ambitious presentation of love including a magnificent score, and stunning sound… (The film's sound captured an Oscar.)

Whitaker gives an excellent performance, with an especially inevitable death scene at the age of 34… Diane Venora is impressive as the wife of this great jazz musician… Their last conversation by phone presented the legend Parker's with his conscientious of his near-death, his lost effort, his feeling of loneliness, but also his kindness, his love, and his care to his entire family… A great scene not to be missed!

Clint Eastwood's reputation as a serious filmmaker was given a considerable boost with this lengthy biography of jazz legend, Charlie "Yardbird" Parker, who Eastwood, a jazz aficionado, saw perform in Oakland, California in 1946. For this labor of love, Eastwood assembled an excellent cast including Forest Whitaker as Parker, Diane Venora--flawless as Bird's woman, Chan Parker--and, in a small role of one of the musician's flirtations, Ana Thompson (the "cut whore" from "Unforgiven"). With the aid of cinematographer Jack N. Green, Eastwood captures the neon burnished lights and darks of the night world Parker inhabited, and the music, featuring genuine Parker solos augmented by modern musicians, can't be faulted, but despite its merits, this "Bird" never takes flight. It is long--too long--and the story it tells, though certainly dramatic in its bleak and uncompromising portrait of an artist whose music was often overshadowed by his drug addiction, weighs down too heavily on the latter than the former. Why is Charlie Parker so important? That question isn't answered here, but another question--why was Charlie Parker dead at 34?--is addressed and answered at length. There is potential on view here--Parker's struggle to survive as a musician in a culture that is more appreciative of rock and roll than of jazz is a minor thread that could have been expanded--but much of it is unrealized. "Bird" is a handsome film, but its craftsmanship and artistry is defeated by the script.

"Bird" will probably be most appreciated by jazz fans who come to it already familiar with Charlie Parker and his incalculable contributions to jazz and influence on generations of musicians that continues to this day. The script contains many shorthand references that might be lost on the average moviegoer -- e.g., Parker calls Dizzy Gillespie "Birks," which was his middle name, but many people probably don't know that.

But there is the music, and tons of it. There are extraordinary performances by Forest Whitaker as Parker, and Diane Venora as his common law wife, Chan. In many ways the film seems more a love story than the standard musical biopic. Chan was unfailingly supportive of Bird, despite his self-destructive drug use, alcoholism and chronic infidelity. He loved her in his own way, and I think she realized that she was in love with a genius who would forever be plagued by demons, and that she couldn't have one without the other.

Clint Eastwood's love of jazz is well-known, and in "Bird" he provides a wealth of wonderful music, beautifully performed. The actual playing of Charlie Parker is augmented by accompaniment from contemporary musicians, and Parker has never sounded better. Eastwood also provides an unflinching portrayal of the complicated lives of jazz musicians, and the addictions to which so many succumb.

Despite the mess that Bird made of his life, he remains a charming and sympathetic figure. And his music, years ahead of its time, and so complex that countless fledging saxophone players have attempted to copy his recordings note for note, will forever live on.

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.

I feel as though the film did not do justice to the musically phenomenal life "Bird" went through. He was one of the most influential Jazz musicians crating an entire style of music. Which i felt was not portrayed fully. As one of the comments i've heard before stated "it seemed they had a choice between Charlie Parker as a musical genius or Charlie Parker as a junkie and they chose junkie."

I felt as though the musicians playing the bird solo's did a bad job reflecting his "sound." As in Charlie Parker had a sound that filled up an entire room with complicated be-bop phrasings and with a blues background. While the musicians just had him playing fast notes most of the time which was sometimes difficult to hear over back ground noise, very "unbird like".

However i did enjoy moments of the film, that showed even Charlie Parker had to play some weird gigs.

My last point is that it felt as though Chan Parker was portrayed as a stable part of bird's life, and was one of the central idea's of the film. As in the love story between him and his wife, with a love hate relationship. Which i think could have been less focused on and centralized more around Charlie Parkers music.

i do understand that Chan actually helped the script writer to write the film so it may have been a somewhat biased perspective.

There are certain movies that leave you dazed when you walk out of the theater. For me, "Bird" was such a movie.

On a nice evening in 1988 I decided to take in a movie on the spur of the moment. I walked to the nearest theater (Fine Arts, Downtown Chicago) and looked to see what was playing. I had never heard of Charlie Parker nor his music, but I was developing a love of jazz and the movie being directed by Clint Eastwood didn't hurt.

I went in, found a seat and had no way of knowing that, in a couple of hours, my life would be different.

The music penetrated my soul in ways I could never express. I was in awe and filled with emotion as the music carried me away while the visions of Charlie Parker's life flashed in front of my face. When the final credits scrolled up the screen, I could not move. I was frozen to my seat, dazed, overwhelmed, completely awed. I couldn't get the music out of my head, songs were playing back as if I'd listened to them a thousand times. My mind felt as if it were orbiting the sun.. spinning round and round, bathed in this warmth of beauty.

I didn't walk out of the the theater so much as stagger. I walked around for miles just playing over and over in my mind what I'd seen and heard and finally, hours after the movie ended I found myself in front of an all night music store where I bought the soundtrack and raced home to listen to it.

No matter that I had to get up in the morning for work... no matter that the movie had ended before 10pm but I didn't find my way home until after 2am. No matter that I was dead tired from walking dazed miles in a haze of thought.

I played that CD until I fell asleep then took it to work and played it all day... I played it constantly for weeks and then I started to buy other Charlie Parker CDs and reading everything I could about him. Charlie Parker is my favorite musician of all time, to this day, nearly 20 years later... and it began with this movie.

The subject matter is wonderful and the music is great. I saw this movie shortly after it came out and was disappointed. I watched it again after learning more about his life and having gained a greater appreciation for be-bop. Well... I was still disappointed.

Clint Eastwood directed this movie and it was clearly a labor of love. The script, however, didn't do the material justice. Even with the charismatic Forrest Whitaker as Bird, this movie is a labor to watch.

The life of jazz great Charlie "Bird" Parker.

Clint Eastwood's homage to Charlie Parker. A great, sensitive biopic. I am not a fan of jazz music, and know very little about it, but you don't have to be a jazz aficionado to enjoy this movie.

Eastwood, a great fan of jazz and very knowledgeable on the subject, gives a great insight into Charlie Parker, especially his drives and personal demons. It could easily have become a very dry, paint-by-numbers, examination of Parker's life but Eastwood gives his character great depth and shows him warts and all. A very sensitive yet revealing portrayal.

Excellent performance by Forest Whitaker as Charlie Parker. Good supporting performances, especially by Diane Venora as Parker's wife, Chan.

Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story completely ruined them for me. Of course, Dewey was targeting contemporary Oscar bait movies like Walk the Line, but it still highlighted some of the major flaws in the basic biopic that I've never been able to shake.

A man lives for 34 years, and then he dies. In those 34 years, he marries more than once, has children, pursues a career in music, battles with drug addiction, and has more highs and lows than most people have in lives twice as long. And that's all supposed to be captured in one sitting in a movie theater.

Bird is not a short movie. At two hours and forty minutes, it's a hefty look into one man's life, but because Charlie Parker's life was so full, the movie, despite its length, still ends up feeling too short. Too shallow. Too staccato.

Forest Whitaker is a fine actor who portrays Parker warmly and sadly. It's a very good performance, along with all of the other actors around him. One thing that Eastwood as a director has always been good at is directing actors, and this is definitely no different. The music is well presented, though I'm not a jazz fan so my appreciation of it was somewhat limited.

My problem really is about trying to squeeze a giant life into a short timeframe. I think it's better to try to capture the essence of a man through a concentrated moment in his life, like how Spielberg approached Lincoln. It wasn't a movie about his rise in Illinois politics, ascendancy to the presidency, the fight of the Civil War, capped with a fight over the 13th Amendment. It was about the 13th Amendment.

Bird was finely produced and well acted, but it felt too all over the place, trying to gather up as much of the life of Charlie Parker that could fit into 160 minutes. It was really well received upon its release, and its obvious that Eastwood had a lot of love for the subject, but I just wished for greater focus.

I watched about a third of this and got so fed up I just put a Charlie Parker cd on instead. The movie looks great and the principals are good especially Forrest Whitaker but there's very little about the music and his interactions with fellow musicians and producers. That would be interesting, instead we get typical Hollywood romance/tragic romance stuff. Bird focuses almost exclusively on Parker's relationship with Chan and his drug addiction, Bird suffers because of that. It's kind of like the bebop version of Titanic. Eastwood is a good sometimes great (Mystic River,White Hunter Black Heart ) director but often he seems entrenched in Hollywoodisms, sort of Ron Howard on steroids.

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+

Did this movie need to be 160 minutes long? No. But did this movie want to be 160 minutes long? Clearly, yes. Bird feels like Clint Eastwood woke up one morning, looked at a chair on the other side of his bedroom, grumbled about how much he liked jazz in its vague direction, and then set about making a movie about jazz, specifically focusing on Charlie Parker. And then he started filming it that afternoon and it was completed like the following Tuesday, because that's just how fast Eastwood makes movies.

Flippancy aside, Bird is pretty decent. It ended up being the last (of 40!) Eastwood-directed films I hadn't seen, and it was a solid enough one to end things on. I don't consider it close to one of his best efforts, but it's better than a good chunk of his lesser films. And, most positively, I appreciate how it felt quite different. It doesn't entirely feel like an Eastwood film, not really in a good or bad way, but it demonstrates some additional range on his part as a director, and that I can appreciate. I would've watched my first Eastwood-directed movie about 14 or 15 years ago, and now that journey throughout his filmography has come to an end. And the movie that marked the end of that journey feels distinctive within his immense body of work.

As for negatives, yeah, Bird is too long and rambly, but maybe those words can be used to disparagingly describe certain kinds of jazz, too. That approach could well be intentional. Also, though I usually like the weird energy Forest Whitaker brings to the roles he plays, I wasn't crazy about his lead performance here. He's big and definitely going for something, but what he's bringing to the film seems to clash a bit with what Eastwood's going for. But, again, jazz. Contrasts. Different rhythms. Disparate elements. I don't know. Intentional? I don't know.

Being a jazz musician and enthusiast, I was really excited to see this movie. However, it ended up being a dreary and disappointing film that dragged on and on.

The story line, as haphazardly arranged as it is, revolves mostly (and justly so) around Parker's debilitating drug addiction, but also around his marriage to Chan. However, it never mentioned his first wife, Doris. The film also tended to dwell (perhaps unjustly so) on his musical relationship with the white trumpeter, Red Rodney. It was surprising how little of it involved Parker's best-known musical partner, Dizzy Gillespie. Miles Davis, who collaborated with Parker a lot during '48 and '49, receives only a quick glimpse in the background during a recording session.

I would have liked to see much more about Parker's development and childhood. Also, I felt that the movie could have used a bit more humor, seeing as Parker was one of the first truly interesting characters in jazz, even though that was, sadly, because of his drug addiction.

"Bird" tends to drag on and on, with the best parts being when Parker plays on camera. I felt that the best scene was the performance at a Jewish wedding. That cracked me up, seeing Bird play a regular Klezmer song and then break into a wildly brilliant bebop improvisation. I don't know if that really happened, but it was fun all the same.

"Ray" is a movie from the same vein as "Bird," but far better.

Those viewers who claim the film is flawed are missing the point. Screenwriter Joel Oliansky (who also directed the film "The Competition") attempted (quite successfully I believe) to combine the elements of jazz music with the visual medium of film. Rhythm, tone, the improvisational aspects of be-bop, all of these elements go into creating a movie unlike any produced. It is not to be viewed in the traditional sense of linear story-telling. The mood created by Jack N. Green's cinematography is completed suited to the atmosphere of the 1940's and 1950's. As for acting, let us point out Forest Whitaker's Best Actor Award from the Cannes Film Festival and Diane Venora's Best Supporting Actress Award from the New York Film Critics. This film resounds with fine filmmaking, headed by Clint Eastwood's passion for the music. And what music! Parker's original solos were cleaned up and integrated with modern musicians into a seamless flow. The picture won the Best Sound Academy Award (sadly, its only nomination). Look at this film as a tribute to a man and a music, a recollection of a brilliant yet dissipated life, and a kind of filmmaking rarely seen by today's audiences.

Forest Whitaker makes a leap to stardom in this wonderful portrayal of jazz great Charlie Parker. Diane Venora is marvelous as well. I felt the film was very long, but perhaps that's because I saw it at a late night show. There's no denying that Clint Eastwood is a great film maker, I just wish the lighting was a little bit lighter- I found it hard to see in some scenes, but of course that could've been the projector. Anyway, Forest Whitaker proves here that he is majorly talented and can carry a movie. I wish more people would cast him as the lead, as I find him fascinating to watch. The music is, of course, great too. Filled with jazz classics that will leave you reeling. I don't think it's suitable for kids though.

I saw Bird as part of a Jazz Appreciation class. The movie pays great homage to Charlie Parker and has some wonderful music in it. So as a movie with jazz music in it, I give it a 10.

As for a story I've got one word long very very long. It took us 2 class periods to watch it. And the class is 3 hours long.

So as a review I really liked the movie because of the music not because of the story line.

This is a very different movie inside Clint Eastwood's career as a director, particularly considering his so perfectly structured movies from mid-1990s on. "Bird" is very impressionistic (and Eastwood is a huge fan of jazz, and his impressions are there, with a lot of music too), with little care about contexts and no didacticism about the historical details. I loved the film in its visual, with its shadows and lights, and period art direction, and Forrest Whitaker is a great actor as everybody knows, but I cannot say the same about the script. Pace is far from engaging, the story explains little and also does not impact emotionally as one could expect given the tragic short life of Charlie Parker.

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...

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.

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+