Rating: 
Summary: Tried to watch it twice - kept falling asleep...
Review: I know this is an unpopular opinion - but this is NOT a good film. It isn't even an interesting one! I love jazz, and love documentaries - but this was just confused and boring.
Rating: 
Summary: Warning - DVD does not play in computers
Review: I saw this movie a long time ago and liked it. Unfortunately,
the DVD is "copy protected" and will not play on most
computers unless you have CSS cracking software. Too bad.
I don't want to buy a DVD player just to watch a few DVD's
so I play them on my computer. But not this one.
Rating: 
Summary: Such a biographical movie
Review: I'm not gon say much but this film is so inspirational since I seen over and over. I think it was the 1st jazz film I ever watched on Charlie "Bird" Parker. Yeah Forest Whitaker does a good job on this movie which win him a award for best film or supportive actor.
I'm happy I bought it on DVD instead on VHS which I didn't want.
It goes to tell all the details on what's behind Bird's life on how he got involved in music, how he got addicted by drugs, how he died, when did he became a legend in the jazz era, etc.
I recommend this along w/ Ray (which I like 'cuz it features Jamie Foxx which won him a whole load of accolades), Jazz-A Film by Ken Burns, The Miles Davis Story, Lush Life, Tupac: Resurrection, Let's Get Lost (the documentary on Chet Baker), Gil Evans and his Orch., Louie Bellson and His Big Band, Marsalis on Music (all volumes), just to name a few.
If u love jazz or if u love Bird, you must love this movie, it'll take u inside on being the best jazz player or best jazz listener yet.
Rating: 
Summary: Intriguing but a disappointment
Review: Jazz aficionado Clint Eastwood's admiration for the legendary Charlie Parker is evident throughout "Bird," but it can't overcome a script that dwells on the great musician's self-destructive drug use at the expense of his musicianship. Why did Charlie Parker die at such a young age? The film answers that question rather explicitly. Why was Charlie Parker great? "Bird" tends to fumble when addressing that question. Still, Eastwood captures the smoky ambiance of Parker's nocturnal world very well, and the music is hard to fault. Though it is ultimately a disappointment, "Bird" is worth a look for admirers of both the director and his subject.
Rating:
Summary: Intriguing but a disappointment
Review: Jazz aficionado Clint Eastwood's admiration for the legendary Charlie Parker is evident throughout "Bird," but it can't overcome a script that dwells on the great musician's self-destructive drug use at the expense of his musicianship. Why did Charlie Parker die at such a young age? The film answers that question rather explicitly. Why was Charlie Parker great? "Bird" tends to fumble when addressing that question. Still, Eastwood captures the smoky ambiance of Parker's nocturnal world very well, and the music is hard to fault. Though it is ultimately a disappointment, "Bird" is worth a look for admirers of both the director and his subject.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant movie
Review: Just as "Amadeus" enhanced my appreciation of Mozart's music, "Bird" made me a Parker fan for life. The music is a star, and it never sounded better (credit fancy engineering for mixing Parker's original solos with modern recording of a backup band). The disjointedness of the timeline just serves to enhance the perception of the disjointed life of a brilliant but tragically flawed artist. The acting is fantastic, the mood and atmosphere are recreated in amazing fashion.
I only wish I had a better feel for Parker's motivation for how he did things. Maybe part of the point is that he was so strongly affected and destroyed by his demons that he really did not have a motivation for how he did what he did.
Rating: 
Summary: great movie
Review: Leonard Maltin writes "...he used to play the flugelhorn and coronet". How can you trust a review that complains that the movie is "overlong" by someone who thinks anyone plays a coronet[sic].Ken Burns should have seen this movie. Maybe he would have produced a decent series.
Rating:
Summary: It Was OK
Review: The acting was great!
The music was incredible!
But the flow of the movie- needed some work.
It was just too jumpy at times, moving TOO fast through some periods, and TOO slow through others.
This movie would be quite boring for those who know nothing about jazz. Only true Parker fans can unerstand it.
I didn't hate "Bird" but I also didn't think it was as good as it could have been.
Rating:
Summary: A celluloid fan letter--better study up before viewing...
Review: The story goes that Clint Eastwood saw Charlie Parker perform in the early 1950s, and was a fan from that time onwards. By the late '80s, Eastwood was a huge enough star that he could indulge in a pet project like this. Not astonishingly, _Bird_ was too distinctive and original for consumers of typical Hollywood product, and Eastwood subsequently went back to Dirty Harry movies. Too bad! This loving tribute to the doomed bop genius is a treat for the knowledgeable Parker fan. By "knowledgeable" I mean that the viewer is expected to be familiar enough with his life to follow several flash-backs and flash-forwards. As in any biopic, material is added, deleted, and massaged, as the story requires. Viewers who know that Parker didn't really witness the birth of rock and roll, and that he had a black first wife, and etc., should just congratulate themselves on their perceptiveness and continue enjoying the film. The big cinematic innovation in this film is the music. Parker's recordings were stripped of accompaniment, down to Parker's sax lines, and new accompaniment recorded on top of them. This adds freshness to the music, and makes it seem revolutionary all over again. The cast is good, with Forrest Whitaker projecting a kind of lumpy, vulnerable, cool. The only thing that could be construed as a misstep is the movie's darkness. Most of the scenes are in smoky clubs or dark alleys. Spike Lee complained that everything was too dark. He might better study how to write coherent endings to his own movies, but he's right. Eastwood was trying for a noir effect, but it doesn't work in color. If he had chosen to film in black and white, he might have succeeded. Some critics wanted more musicology, but Eastwood was right in devoting only one short scene to how Bird got his sound. What's interesting on paper wouldn't have worked onscreen. Other critics were offended that a white man presumed to tell a black artist's story, and deplored the dearth of all the possible afro-rants that could have been stuffed into the script. They're wrong, too. Racial prejudice is present in the film, but Eastwood correctly does not give it center stage. And, if they look real, real closely, they'll see that this is serious, high-quality film with a 90% black cast--are there too many of those being produced these days? So, if you like Clint Eastwood but don't know who Charlie Parker is, read an encyclopedia article on Bird and then groove on this. If you like Parker but are iffy about Eastwood, fear not--Clint's done a great job preserving this great genius' memory. Don't forget the "Salt Peanuts"!
Rating:
Summary: Academy Award For Sound
Review: The work required to restore the old sound recordings of Charlie Parker earned this film an Academy Award. The cinematic talent of Clint Eastwood, though often overlooked, demonstrates an exceptional understanding of film technique. He is one of the finest directors working today. Evidently his early contact with Don Seigel and Sergio Leone had a contributing influence. The repetitive scenes in Bird serve to marry style and substance into a story line which develops into a cinematic equivalent to jazz music. The death scene at Nikka's is remarkable. Eastwood later earned an Academy Award for Unforgiven, but his early film work, The Outlaw Josey Wales, and Bird, represents some of the cumulative force behind the academy's recognition of his cinematic accomplishments. The DVD earned a low rating for contrast and picture quality. The technical shortcomings in this copy may be the result of aesthetic decisions made during the film making process, and reflects the hand of the film maker, who uses light and dark to paint a representation of his subject on the screen.
|
