Bird People

Gary Newman (Josh Charles) is a Silicon valley engineer in Paris for business. Audrey Camuzet (Anaïs Demoustier) is an University student working as a maid in an airport Hilton where Gary is staying at. Gary has a breakdown. He skips his flight out and resigns from work angering his business partner. He's also leaving his wife Elisabeth (Radha Mitchell) and kids. Then an extraordinary transformation happens to Audrey.

First of all, this needs to be condensed. Parts of this is as compelling as watching surveillance video. I'm not advocating rushing this but it needs to be faster than a meditation. It's also static at times. Gary's confrontation with his wife is visually static but it is filled with tension. That's not always the case. This movie often lacks tension. There is a big change in the second half of the movie. It's a head scratcher. While it's interesting, I wonder what's the point. It lacks direction and it's also very odd that Gary is rarely in the second half. There is only one scene where there is any tension in that second half and that cat really scared me for a second. I doubt that I could recommend this to anyone but at least, it does something different.

it seems be a sketch. or mix of fairy tale and ordinary existential crisis. simple, convincing and beautiful. a delicate drawing more than a film. because it is a story of metamorphose. a story of new, fundamental beginning. and few admirable scenes - the young painter and the sparrow as model, the tension between Gary and his wife in on - line talk as good examples - are splendid portraits of deep solitude and the profound desire to escape from yourself. it is difficult to pledge for it. not only because the taste of each viewer is different but because the symbols, used as steps to the last scenes, has different translations for each of us. short, a real beautiful film. remembering "Anomalisa".

Just a bunch of ads (Marlboro, Hilton, Ibis, HSBC, Pringles...) and a non-sense screenplay that tries to look profound. In the beginning it makes you think it's going somewhere, but don't fool yourself, it doesn't. Dialogs are imbecilic.

This is actually a big day for me, because I witnessed the worst movie in the history of the universe. That's a milestone. I was actually quite excited initially by the plot summary and setting. I love stuff that involves airports, Paris, and hotels.

The first half hour held me, because I assumed they were establishing the setting for what was to come, and the payoff would be later. I really enjoyed the scenes of the hotel basement, and the housekeeper girl's routine.

But then something went completely haywire. There was a narrator coming out of nowhere. It wasn't even the character narrating. Just a random French male voice talking about the male character in third person. Then an endless Skype conversation that bordered on voyeurism for the rest of us. Then a bird flying around looking for snacks. I was looking for a rope and a stool.

"Experimental" is one thing, but completely discombobulated fantasy mixed with reality is yet another. Make up your mind and roll with one style. Like other reviewers, I got the metaphor about feeling trapped and wanting to fly free. But I would have preferred more interaction between the two main characters. That would have made for a decent film.

The stars look different and just the sunlight is more beautiful when we fly away from our lives, even for a moment. "Beauty surrounds us," Rumi writes "but we usually need to be walking in a garden to know it." Audrey and Gary are not quite birds of a feather. They are strangers to each other. Yet each of them goes through a similar transformation and dramatic shift in perspective. Their eyes open to new opportunities, as with Cinderella, after dreams or realizations of wonder. Audrey is a young hotel maid appreciating just how much the world is open to her. Gary is an American traveling in Paris on business who abruptly, and in a computer message, calls it quits on his wife, kids and job. With capable acting and directing, and superb writing, the film unravels slowly. At times a little too slowly. Is it really necessary, for the sake of the plot, to see Audrey light up and smoke almost the entire length of cigarette? As the film unwound I began to suspect and understand the reasons for the plodding pace. It is for us, and the characters, to ponder the intricacies of their lives, the possibilities of their newfound and limitless horizons, and more. Still, the next time someone breaks out a pack of cigarettes in a French film, I am going to walk around the block, read a book chapter or something, and return to the theater to see them on their last puffs in front of the same window. Seen at the 2014 Toronto International Film Festival.