Let me preface this with two things:1. Unlike some other negative reviews I'm seeing here, my opinion of this movie has nothing to do with the subject matter.2. I have not seen the original French version.Maybe I just don't appreciate "farce", a term which everyone who loves this movie seems to insist on using to describe it.In my own terms, I'd describe this movie as battle-of-the-stereotypes trapped in a 95-minute long "Three's Company" episode--you're forced to watch as incredibly unreasonable and/or unrealistic decisions cause "misunderstandings" and "wacky situations" to pile up on each other, and you have to suffer through it all with uncomfortable anticipation because you know full well that at some point the paper-thin house of cards will all come crashing down. I find this kind of storytelling to be unbearable.I love(d) Robin Williams, and maybe I'm just accustomed to seeing him in other roles, but I just don't entirely buy him in this role. It's not that it's a bad performance, it just seems more like a straight person's circa-1996 interpretation of what being gay is. He's believable as a loving partner, and he's actually the straight man (pun alert!) of his coupling with Nathan Lane, but there's at least one moment that stands out like something from his stand-up act -- too over-the-top and almost mocking to be in character.Lane is grating. Again, another actor I like, but the character that he plays is so completely turned up to 11 at every moment--he's somehow loud, emotionally stunted, practically bipolar and a gentle snowflake all at the same time. Other reviews I've read here find him funny (I completely don't), but once again, I don't understand what's so funny about playing the character so unrealistically stereotypical. It also hurts the suspension of disbelief in Williams' character -- why would Williams' rather reasonable, down-to-earth character put up with Lane's character's nonsense?And, a note regarding stereotypes: I've noticed some other reviewers here citing the overdone stereotypes as the REASON it's funny, and I couldn't disagree more. Yes, stereotypes can absolutely be cleverly and successfully worked into comedy--I would argue that the underrated "Undercover Brother" proves that--but these characters, most notably Lane, are just so loud and in-your-face that you get to a point where you just want them to shut up.Another reviewer mentioned the son being a somewhat unlikeable character, and with the actions and demands he makes in the story, to that end, I agree. This is yet another casualty of this movie's disconnect from reality -- the son of a gay couple could never actually expect his parents to do what he's asking of them. Granted, it's probably because this movie is based on a relic of the late 70s, but still.Despite mostly hating this movie, the reason I'm giving it 3 out of 10 is because it has a COUPLE of bright spots. Hank Azaria has a few good moments as Lane and Williams clownish house boy, and there are a couple of random funny bits sprinkled here and there (Williams trying to teach Lane how to be less outwardly gay is pretty funny). Also, I love Christine Baranski--unfortunately, she kinda gets shafted on screen time (part of the build-up to the "wackiness"). Gene Hackman and Dianne Wiest are both fine actors and play their roles well, I just wish it was in the service of a better story.Bottom Line: I am a Mike Nichols fan, I like everyone in the cast, but I just don't see this movie as successful on any level. Maybe it just lost something in the translation from French.

Many years ago I watched LA CAGE AUX FOLLES, which this film is based on, and incidentally was one of the first foreign language films I ever saw. From what I remember, it was a laugh-riot from beginning to end, and was very economical at 96 minutes. THE BIRDCAGE, directed by Mike Nichols and starring Robin Williams, Nathan Lane and Gene Hackman, tells essentially the same story but with an American bent. While I can respect the changes that were made, at about 25 minutes longer things could have been more streamlined than they were. Here, Robin Williams plays a more subtle comedic character as Armand, the owner of the titular Birdcage, a drag club where his partner Albert (Nathan Lane) is the star performer. When his son Val comes home for a visit, he tells his father that he is getting married, but to the daughter of a conservative Senator. The comedy of errors that ensues has to be seen to be believed, and in my mind was as funny as the original. Robin Williams was very effective in playing the "straight" man to Nathan Lane's hysterical queen, and both played off of each other very well. Gene Hackman was also pretty hilarious as a stereotypically backwards-minded right-winger. Overall, while a remake of LA CAGE AUX FOLLES might not have been necessary, THE BIRDCAGE is pretty funny, if a little long-winded in parts. It has a great cast who all perform very well together, with special mention going to Hank Azaria as Armand and Albert's butler Agador. It also had a fine soundtrack as well. Bottom line: Robin Williams fans should enjoy this, as long as the satirical jabs at Republicans don't offend them, and fans of the French original should find plenty to like here as well.

One of my all time favourites. The first time I saw it we were laughing so much we raised a friend out of her sickbed and watched it again back to back so she could see what all the fuss was about. It was every bit as enjoyable the second time.I have introduced the film to several people since and never tire of it. Beautifully pitched performances doing justice to a lovely piece of writing.Some prefer the 1978 original which I saw yesterday and did not really enjoy. It seems a strange word to use about the Birdcage but my feeling is that there is a subtlety to it which the 1978 La Cage aux Folles version lacks that brings out the charm and humour of the writing. (It could be that it was dubbing of the 1978 version that marred it for me).

In the tradition of comedies about cross-dressing guys such as "Some Like it Hot" (1959), "Tootsie" (1982), and "Mrs. Doubtfire" (1993) comes another such comedy with Mike Nichols' 1996 picture "The Birdcage". To my knowledge, this is the second cross-dressing picture that the late Robin Williams had starred in, after "Mrs. Doubtfire". And this time, though he doesn't dress as a nanny, he is married to a drag queen (Nathan Lane) that he runs a drag nightclub, named "The Birdcage", with. They have a son (Dan Futterman) who has just gotten engaged to the daughter (Calista Flockhart) of an ultraconservative senator (Gene Hackman in a juicy supporting role). Due to pressing circumstances at home, the senator, his daughter and his wife (Dianne Wiest) head down to Miami to meet the groom's parents. However, because his parents' sexual orientation will lead to controversy for the senator's re-election, the son tries to get his reluctant parents to act like a "normal" family for the sake of the engagement. Will the gay couple and their son be able to pull off this difficult act? Right out of the gate, the most surprising element of "The Birdcage" is just how restrained the performance by Robin Williams is. Every time I watch this picture, I always seem to forget that Robin Williams is in this because he doesn't act like the skilled impersonator that he usually acts like in films such as "Aladdin" (1992). Yes, he does a couple of physical impersonations in a few scenes early on. But for the most part, he maintains a steady balance both comedic wise and dramatically between acting like a normal homosexual dad and a stressed out director. When I say that I forget Robin Williams is in this, I do not intend that as an insult. If anything, I intend that comment as a compliment to what Robin Williams accomplished as an actor. A good actor disappears into character, and a good comedic actor incorporates the right amount of humor into serious and/or stressful situations. Robin Williams accomplished both with his work in this picture which in turn makes it the perfect summary of his distinguished career in a nutshell. Amongst the other standout performances that "The Birdcage" offers, the most notable one of all is the work by Gene Hackman. Who doesn't love the idea of a fictional senator who insists that he needs candy and/or chocolate to help him cope with stressful situations? Every joke made about this character's addiction to candy hits their target, but the writers don't make it the only joke to this character. This senator is very paranoid because every little thing he could do that would be considered wrong will most likely end up in sleazy magazines like National Enquirer. His paranoia is a result of everything that is wrong with a celebrity lifestyle in a way. He's cranky, but always in an enjoyable and often hilarious way. You'd easily be convinced that people like him exist in real-life. He's written in such a way that you would believe that anyone similar to him would react the same way that he does to all the things his character experiences. Nathan Lane's performance is also worth noting. Let's recap the requirements for his particular role. He has to convince the audience that his character has been acting like a woman his whole life. Furthermore, he has to show us his character's physical struggles toward doing manlier things such as walking like John Wayne or smearing mustard on toast. The scene where Robin Williams helps physically man his character up demonstrates in a nutshell why Lane's performance pays off well. With any scene having Nathan Lane in it, one can clearly tell that he's studied how women physically and mentally behave. As far as the chemistry between Williams and Lane goes, their relationship consists of more arguing than sharing a connection which takes away from the experience a bit. But to be fair, there is at least a scene or two that shows them doing something that's meaningful for their relationship whether it's helping each other out or anything of that sort. The character of the son that these two raised sadly is kind of a prick. I'm having trouble deciphering what it is about this guy that rubs me the wrong way, but it basically boils down to his grating neediness. He wants his parents to get rid of all the homosexually suggestive decorations in their apartment to appease the other family. I get the reasons behind taking that course of action, but he gets his parents to do it in such a way that they practically have no choice. Either help him out with making this wedding successful or never see him again. Well, anyway you slice it, they're still not going to see him again either way. And yes, you get a scene or two where he appreciates what his parents are doing for him. Even with that said though, his character is executed in such a way that he becomes more of a burden to the plot rather than enhancing the conflict for our main leads. And I'm sorry, but the relationship between him and the senator's daughter didn't feel that legitimate to me. Their so-called romance is just a plot device and nothing more. My mom seems to consider "The Birdcage" her favorite film and to a certain degree, I can see why that might be. It's a light and fluffy piece of escapism that's ideal for a good evening's entertainment. The jokes and laughs this picture provides are plentiful, but most importantly, they're accompanied by a worthy narrative and characters that complement the laughter that "The Birdcage" offers. Check it out, it's worth two hours of your time.