Fluentiama Perfect cast and a good story

Dotbankey A lot of fun.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Benas Mcloughlin Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

mason95135 I discovered this film by chance and when I watched the trailer I imagined a film about a man who is disenchanted with life, who feels a vague emptiness and leaves it all behind and forms an unusual connection, quasi-romance with the maid whom is a dreamer and a man whose dreams and love for life long ago died. Akin to Lost in Translation.This is not the case! The film is nothing like what one imagines and does in fact involve bird people; although I will not spoil it. It is hard to rate Bird People as it does not fall in line with a traditional film. It does not fall under any genre; although it would be easy to see it as a observation of the ills of "modern" life; modernity and technology in the film fulfills the background not focus. It is a surprising movie and one that will leave an impression on you. I highly recommend it!.

bvilches I love French cinema, I love movies that focus on characters rather than action but this is too much. I watched 20 minutes and I couldn't bear it anymore. I tried to give it time so something can developer but nothing happens, really. There's no action whatsoever, no explanation, background voice appears from nowhere, the characters don't seem to have any motivation to do what they do... come on!If you want a 10 minute scene about room cleaning, go ahead and watch it.Oh, and the bird equals freedom cliché it's so obvious that it's annoying!

dansview 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.

mamlukman Saw this tonight at TIFF. Piers gave his usual pretentious introduction. I guess my reaction is WTF? It starts off fine, with interesting scenes of the airport…but are we supposed to follow one of these people we see? No. Is there a point to the long introduction? I think not. Then it switches to Audrey on the subway and bus, but a much shorter segment. So then we launch into this big story about Gary Newman (name has no significance according to the director-- she just chose a name that sounded common). Gary quits his job, marriage, children, house, etc. after thinking it over in a sleepless night. No real reason, just that he "feels like a melting sugar cube." Don't we all? So then there is a series of telephone calls with Gary's partners, lawyer, etc. Will this go anywhere in terms of advancing the story? No. Then a much, much longer Skype talk with his wife, Radha Mitchell (one of my favorites). Does this advance the story? No. Then all of a sudden we drop Gary and we focus on Audrey the maid. We know we're switching since "Audrey" appears in a heading on the screen. Subtle. So she gets some overtime, is invited to a party she doesn't go to, tells her father she spent the day at the university when she spent it being a maid at the hotel, and finally we are treated to watching her clean a couple rooms. Suddenly the power goes out, she goes up to the roof, feels that she is falling, and poof, she has turned into a sparrow. Then the sparrow flies around talking to itself and having various adventures. Then the bird turns back into Audrey, she gets on the elevator with Gary, and they have a conversation about "Personne" meaning both "no one" and "a person"--opposite meanings in the same word. Gary asks her what the opposite of this word would be in French. "Pareil" (the same) she says. (If this is the key to the movie, then I don't know how to turn it.) Then they shake hands. Fin.Maybe I missed everything about this movie, maybe not. Yeah, sure, it was technology vs. magic dream state. Sort of. But you know what? Audrey uses modern technology too. A lot of stuff about open windows…which means? Freedom? The best I can come up with is that they are both searching for a better life and looking for freedom. Otherwise, they seem to be random stories that have nothing to do with each other. And if there is an "ending" it eludes me. I'm adding this to my growing list of French films I find incomprehensible. I will say that Anais (Audrey) is cute, so she makes it watchable when she's on screen.Finally, you could also make the case that this whole movie is an extended ad for Marlboros. Everyone smokes--everyone. At every chance they get. They borrow cigarettes. The buy cigarettes. Every time they hold the cigarette box or put it down, we're treated to a closeup of the box and brand name. I guess my question here is how much money did Marlboro pay to get this sort of exposure? Why do we pay to see an ad?