This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Excellent, smart action film.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Given that Clint Eastwood is, famously, an ardent jazz enthusiast, he should be commended for producing a film that manages to maintain some dramatic balance. It could be so easy to cobble together a hagiographic sequence of people being astonished and fawning at Charlie Parker's virtuosity and daring. Certainly, Eastwood uses the extraordinary extant recordings to great effect, illuminating pivotal moments both for Parker and his friends, colleagues and acolytes alike. Yet we also get the tawdriness, insecurity, filth, recklessness and pain, stripped of the romanticism that retrospect would otherwise confer on it.Sorry to say, I think that Eastwood does succumb to some indulgence. It's clear that he garnered considerable information from Parker's widow Chan. The scenes with Chan (well-played by Diane Venora) are too many and clog the drama, in deference to her contribution. The film is too long, despite its incorporation of the cultural changes of an America in the middle of the previous century. The well-constructed 'flashback' style sequences of heightened realism should have been sufficient to allow us space to breathe and reflect on his situation - as Parker himself is doing in those moments.Forest Whitaker's fine, hectic-yet-tempered re-creation of this most incandescent of musicians is as good as his Oscar-winning Idi Amin. The key is that he connects up all the mood lurches. One can tell that abandon, even self-destruction isn't far away, even as he plays. Yet the sequences of clear sobriety are not conducted by a Dr Jekyll whose Mr Hyde has been excised; the shadow - and the guilt - lingers.I appreciated Eastwood's adherence to the neon-fringed chiaroscuro of Parker's nocturnal existence (i.e. 52nd Street). The editing of the film is also nicely judged. If only the director had had the daring to really cut the film back and give us a BeBop-blast of a biopic. 5/10

Clint Eastwood's love for jazz is clearly reflected in this marvelous piece of tragedy. 'Bird' is indeed about the one and only legendary Charlie Parker who lived a somewhat tortured life supported by his wife Chan, alcohol, substance abuse and jazz and yet he became the greatest give to jazz. His contribution remains one of the most essential to the music and he is one name that's required to be known by all jazz lovers. 'Bird' is one film that will especially appeal to jazz lovers.The cinematography and lighting adds to the 40s and 50s chaotic jazz atmosphere. However, I thought that perhaps Parker's solos would have been better left with the original music instead of integrating it with modern musicians. Nevertheless this is one minor flaw. 'Bird' isn't told in chronological order and I was a little confused about the time-line but quickly it got clear.I also loved the way Clintwood focused on the love story between Bird and Chan. There clearly was a deep love between the two but Parker was a difficult tormented soul and his wife always had a strong presence in his life, always being there for him despite his chronic abuse of drugs and alcohol and his infidelity. Forest Whitaker gives the performance of a lifetime. He's sublime but also ravaged and disturbingly tormented as Charlie Parker. I haven't seen 'The Last King of Scotland' but I wonder why it took years for this actor to get the deserved recognition. Diane Venora is just as good and in spite of having numerous good work to her credit, she too does not seem to get the deserved recognition.I think 'Bird' would have been a better film about Parker, had Eastwood shown more of Parker's contribution to jazz in 'Bird'. I was already a little familiar with Parker's works and influence. We do catch a very little glimpse of Parker's struggle in getting accepted as a musician. As a result, 'Bird' isn't exactly a 'complete' biopic. I remember watching another beautiful biopic called 'Iris' but was very disappointed that there was no mention of the great writers works. Perhaps Eastwood wanted to limit the film from exceeding the length (it's already longer than two hours) yet at places the pace is quite lethargic.Having said it all, in spite of its flaws, it remains a fantastic film that I recommend to everyone, not only jazz lovers. A fine piece of film.

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.

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.