Way before of his outstanding and recent biographical works like "Invictus", "Changelling" and "J.Edgar", this was the first serious film directed by Clint Eastwood, at that time famous for his westerns and action films. And Mr. Eastwood directs this cine biography of Charlie Parker with an impressive artistic style that pays a great tribute to one of the most important jazz figures.Landing on his first leading role, the amazing Forest Whitaker plays Parker, known as "Bird", from his first gigs as musician way before of becoming famous as a regular on the Birdland to all his problems with drug addiction, his troubled life and ultimately to his death at age 34. Here's the artist in all his forms fighting against countless demons; surviving with his art, a true master with the saxophone, an true legend that couldn't decide between staying strong for his work and for his family or to succumb to all of his problems, someone who couldn't bear the tragedy of losing a child, and seeing how the music changed around him and around his other musician mates, most of them joining rock groups, trading their styles.Clint recreates the 1930-1950's period with a great visual sense, the right colors, all dark, an endless night that can be noticed as a reflection on Bird's life, a great darkness with few but powerful lights shining through. This movie always reminds of "'Round Midnight" (1986), another great jazz film.What can be viewed as a negative point is the fact the film focus mostly on Charlie Parker downer moments rather than displaying his musical geniality, his performances (at least, the ones we're allowed to see are highly credible thanks to Whitaker's effort in the acting). It's a tough film to watch, very depressive. I don't find Joel Olianski's script a perfect work but it is a great achievement indeed. Since the story is presented through flashbacks (that weren't so well developed) most viewers will not find "Bird" an easy experience to watch. A more linear approach would fit better, it would make the film move with more quality, with efficiency and a certain appeal to audiences. Those who know about Bird will enjoy the film, I think, even though there's a certain lack of good facts about him, his partnership with Miles Davis, etc (And where's his memorable performance of "A Night in Tunisia" (composed by Dizzy Gillespie by the way)?But there's time to cover his marriage with Chan (Diane Venora), an loyal woman who managed to stay with the man regardless of anything; and his trip down the deep south with his black band and the only white member of it, Rodney (Michael Zelniker) was forced to play as a singer because of the place rules. Detail: the guy couldn't sing! A light and funny moment in the picture.Jazz fans or not, at least watch it to see how great Clint is in directing this and see how a talent is born in front of cameras and I'm talking about Forest Whitaker, at that time known for his supporting roles in "Fast Times in Ridgemont High" and "Good Morning, Vietnam", and here he has the role of a lifetime as Parker. Whitaker plays the character with conviction, not just the music and using the saxophone but the man's pain, his inner conflicts, his lovable side, to the point of of making a serenade to Chan while standing on a white horse. It is his most complete performance.Ladies and gentlemen, please enjoy the finest jazz brought by Mr. Eastwood in one of the most interesting films of 1988. 10/10

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.

This is an incredible movie and one of the best music biopics ever. I was already a fan of Charlie Parkers music and I think that helps when it comes to appreciating this film. But, Forrest Whitaker's performance is incredible as are all of the others who so accurately portray the real life musicians of the film. If there is one detractor in the movie, it is the fact that there are a lot of flash backs and flash forwards and at times it can be a little hard to follow. I didn't get everything until I saw it the second or third time. Highly recommended. If you liked Coal Miners Daughter, Ray or Walk the Line or if you are a fan of jazz music, you will love Bird.

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+