I didn't know that much about Charlie Parker walking into `Bird', and sadly, I still don't know that much about him. The film attempts to shed some light (figuratively) on the man that was Charlie Parker, but through poor construction and overwrought delivery the film fails at almost every attempt. True, both Whitaker and Venora are nearly flawless in this film, but their superb acting cannot in the end elevate what Clint Eastwood has done to this picture.

Charlie Parker became famous in the 40's for his brilliant mastery of the saxophone. At least that is what I gather. He met and fell in love with the feisty Chad. At least that is what I gather. They had some kids together. He had a drug and alcohol addiction problem. He died young. I gathered all of this, but this is just a simple and rather bland synopsis of a man who Eastwood tries to paint as extraordinary, as memorable or important. I never really gathered that. I never really understood why Eastwood was so fascinated with this man.

Sure, he could play the saxophone, but what made him stand out from other musicians with hard lives who died young?

I think that the story is here, it is just muddled down by Eastwood's poor production decisions. The pacing is horrible, applying flashback overtop of flashback with no distinction between the two. I was consistently confused as to when and what was going on. Was this before he was married, was this after the kids were born, was this before he tried to commit suicide, was this after he was hospitalized. Eastwood never truly gets a grasp at what he is trying to tell us. One minute Parker is collapsing on the floor, the next he is playing at a club, the next he is meeting Chad for the first time, the next he is fighting with her about their children. Possibly he was trying to create something profound, but he over-thought the construction and it comes off feeling like he randomly selected the scenes he thought looked the best and then strung them all together in no particular order. But then again, how could Eastwood know what scenes looked the best when it is so hard to see the scenes to begin with. The film is so dark that I felt as if I was watching a black screen with a few scattered shadows for most of the films running time. I understand that the darkness may have added to the feel and mood of the era, but there is such a thing as improvised lighting, you know, making the objects visible to the audience. I don't like straining to see what I am trying to enjoy.

The film is a muddled mess overall, but the performances by the two leads are outstanding to say the least. Whitaker is a tad overrated in my book, but aside from his outstanding `Last King of Scotland' performance this is truly his finest. He really gets into Parker's head and delivers a heartbreaking portrayal of a lost soul. It's just a shame that he works harder than Eastwood. The true standout here is Diane Venora though. Her portrayal of Chad is not diminished by Eastwood's unsteady hand, for her character is not as central as Whitaker's. What I mean is that all of Eastwood's horrid decisions take away from the man that was Charlie Parker, but because of the fact that Chad is a supporting player she isn't damaged as much as Parker because she is allowed to develop a strong supporting performance. Venora does just that, evoking raw and believable emotions with each scene. She wants to save her husband but she knows in her heart that that is impossible.

I really wish that `Bird' would have been handled better. It's really hard to appreciate how devastating or even moving Charlie Parker's life was when you watch this messy production. Whitaker and Venora deserve better than this. Charlie Parker deserves better than this.

Most of all, we, the audience, deserve better than this.

This is a fantastic movie with lots of special features. It doesn't matter if you're a fan of Forest Whitaker as an actor, Clint Eastwood as a director or Charlie Parker as an artist (which I am, am and am now). It's just a great movie that honors a man who greatly influenced jazz and influenced all modern music. You'll see some important history from that era.

so pleased to find this great old classic and in such good condition for gifts!

I love this film and the review that follows is for the DVD quality only. Some have said that the DVD is a little dark in places. Others have claimed that the film was meant to be dark because of its subject matter. Well, to say that this DVD is a little dark in some scenes is a gross undersatement. It is so dark that you cannot see any of the people in these scenes. I have the laserdisc of the film and it is no where near as dark as this DVD. This DVD needed to be recalled!! It is a joke and I am going to try and get a refund because the whole master needs to be re-done. The "remastered 5.1 sound" is also a joke. Although it sounds good, the sound on the laserdisc is vastly superior. I was anxiosly awaiting this disc because the laser is not in widescreen, but the trade-off is not worth it.

Up-date: I have just viewed both DVD and Laser simultaneously on my fairly new Samsung LCD HD TV and they actually both look the same. Since the last time I watched my laserdisc copy was on my previous TV, which was a standard set, the overly dark picture seems to be related to the inability of LCD TVs to reproduce detail in extreme shadow areas. An interesting side-note, however, is that the DVD widescreen version does not add information to the sides of the picture, it justs masks off the top and bottom.

First Class Film Making by Clint Eastwood. You can tell by the quality of this film that Clint is a JAZZ Lover Extraordinary!!!!!
Dark presentation which really detracts from the film but had it been less difficult to view i would have given it a 10 out of 5 !!!!!!!!!!! I am a little miffed why this was allowed to be released with such a dark presentation especially after the professional attention given a film before release!!!!!!!????????