The Big Year was alright. It was neither horrible nor outstanding, neither fully factual nor completely made-up, neither 
completely engaging nor totally alienating. I would give it a solid “B-” as a birder whether I was grading on a curve or not. If you are a birder you should, of course, see the movie. If you are not a birder there is no reason to see it in the theater because despite the fact that the movie is about birding there is very little that is exciting or funny or original and little in the plot that is not cliched.
What did I like? I loved the scene where the character played by Steve Martin looks at a hummingbird with wonder in his eyes. I thought the scene where the character played by Jack Black and his father find a Great Gray Owl in the woods was touching. Some of the interactions between Jack Black and Steve Martin were great. I usually like all three of the lead actors and I felt that Steve Martin was as good as ever. Angelica Huston was great as the pelagic boat captain but played such a small role that she could not hope to save this average movie from mediocrity. Ditto for Rashida Jones, who plays the Jack Black character’s love interest. The interplay between birders and their non-birding loved ones ring true, especially between the Steve Martin character and his family. But, mostly, I liked that birding was on the big screen and that is the main reason that this film gets the “B-” that it does.
What didn’t I like? I didn’t like all the things the movie got wrong. Who can focus entirely on a movie and suspend their disbelief when what they are watching is riddled with errors? And The Big Year is loaded with mistakes, misrepresentations, and misconceptions. Sure, some are done in an attempt to get laughs or for plot purposes but the movie would have been much better if it were more accurate. Examples? The person who “wins” a big year competition is not the best birder in the world; fallout is not a situation where a cloud of birds hovers in the air for apparently hours; late in a North American big year no one but the most incompetent birders are excited about adding Sandhill Crane; birders do not stand around trying to stump each other by making bird calls; no birders run up to a spot, throw their binoculars to their eyes, spot a bird, and then run on seemingly at random; there is no motel adjacent to the Brownsville dump and when birders bird that dump they do not stand around in garbage up to their knees; and neither Pink-footed Geese nor Swainson’s Hawks show up on a mountain in Colorado in the middle of winter. There is no reason for a movie to get basic things about birds and birding wrong unless no real effort is made to get things right.
Jack Black was out of his element and the occasional pratfall failed to elicit even a giggle from anyone in the audience. Owen Wilson could have really shone as a character that was a huge deal in the birding world but a real loser in his family life but his performance was flat. Jim Parsons as a blogger hardly factored and what little screen time he had was lousy and essentially pointless.
Now I am sure some readers are reading this and thinking to themselves things like “Well, Corey had a vendetta against this movie” or “Corey sounds like a comic book nerd angry that the movie about his favorite comic slightly altered the origin story of the protagonist” or “Who is this guy and what is he talking about?”
Honestly, I would have much preferred to see an outstanding birding movie. It would have been good for birding and made me feel like the $13 we pay for a movie theater ticket here in Queens was well spent. But the fact that this movie debuted this past weekend and grossed a total of $3.325 million on 2,150 screens is not a good sign (just over $1,500 per screen is just not enough). Odds are that The Big Year will quickly fade from the big screen and from most people’s memories. No matter how you slice it, that is not good for birding. Maybe if real outreach had been made by the studio into the birding world there would have been more people getting to the theater? Nah…I’m not going to second guess.
To sum up – If you are a birder go see this movie because it is the last time for a very long time that a major studio will make a movie about birding. If you are not a birder there is no reason to see this movie at all.
…
Just to poke at bit at your review (I have not seen the movie yet). I’m sure you exepected a certain amount errors in the film, most of which are unavoidable.
But lets think about this:
1. Yes, winning a Big Year does not make you the “Best Birder in the World”, but to an average movie goer, how to do you explain a competition in which there is no prize?
2. Fall-out is hard to explain to a non-birder, it usually involves a good number of species concentrated in a small area. Graphically showing big flocks of birds hovering in one spot is a way to convey this concept.
3. You as a veteran of big days and big years should know there is always a bird your missing that should be easy to get. So getting excited about a Sandhill Crane could be very true and even if Sandhilll Crane is a bit of a stretch its a big photographic bird that gets people’s attention. Getting excited about a Willow Flycatcher just wouldn’t have same effect on movie patrons.
4 “Birders do not stand around trying to stump each other with bird calls.” Yes they do!
5. As for range errors, the movie was likely at the mercy of what kind of raptor they could get from a handler. At least it wasn’t a Harris’s Hawk and Domestic Graylag.
I saw the movie Friday night. Luckily, tickets in Dallas only cost $7.50, and that still seems like a lot! Sometimes I was the only one in the theater laughing. It is isn’t going to be a blockbuster, yet I enjoyed it. But that is probably what you’d expect from an incompetent who got excited seeing Sandhill Cranes! 😉
Good review Corey. You have convinced me to wait for Netflix.
It seems Corey wrote his review after he learned about the Gray Kingbird? 🙂
Hey, at least every bird was correctly identified, they used real bird names, and they named real birding locations with some of the species you might get there. That is way more effort at correctness than I expected for this movie. Pink-footed Goose in a hot spring at the top of the Rockies? I’ll take it. Although I’ll agree with you that it’s not much of a movie if you’re not a birder.
Minor spoilers ahead…
I agree with the B-, not so much because of the bird inaccuracies (which I expected and accepted with only a little nausea) but because it’s mostly not real funny, not real dramatic, and not real moving.
For me, the best scene was Brad (Jack Black) explaining to his dad why a “grey bird” is his favorite. Brian Dennehy and Black nailed that…and it summed up my feelings about a lot of birds (and nature) that I love. Second best was Stu’s (Steve Martin) disgusted reaction to a TV anchor’s attempt to make a joke about birding. I felt his pain.
Worst part for me (birding wise) was that Jim Parson’s character was almost non-existent, and when he was there he was a creepy, paparazzi-like blogger. Bloggers don’t spend all their time talking about who they saw birding or sneaking a peak at others’ notebooks to publish their lists online. That character was horrible. The 90 seconds of screen time should been cut. That may have been extra-disappointing because I was looking forward to Jim Parsons so much.
I was in an urban location, in an 18-bay theater on a busy Saturday night and there were 16 people other than my group of four at the 9:00 show. I’ll go out on a limb here and say there is ZERO chance this is going to effect birding as we know it.
^^^ effect = affect ^^^ …wish there was an edit function on these posts…
That’s too bad that you didn’t like the movie, but there were sure to be some flaws, as most people in Hollywood probably find it hard to believe that people will spend their free time searching for birds. I think The Big Year still has the potential to get more people interested in birding and other bird-related hobbies, even if it is just reading a series of books about birds, like my Birder Murder mysteries.
Let’s face it. If we want to make a good birding movie, we will have to make it ourselves. Still, I was happy that the director went with the personal & touching viewpoint rather than what some of us feared, a slapstick farce. I enjoyed the birding parts of the movie, and would have gladly fast-forwarded through everything else. Well, maybe not the scene where Steve Martin becomes a business shrike, impressing his business minions who previously could not understand his fascination with “those birds.”
I totally identified with some of the early incidents in the movie: making small talk with a homeowner because you’re polite when what you really want to do is run to the backyard and see the bird, waiting for a group of nonbirders to walk over the bridge and missing the bird (substitute seniors for girl scouts, this really happened to me). I would have been happy with more of that. But, I don’t think the little ironies of a birders’ life would have made sense to nonbirders.
I do wish they filmed it in the United States! I imagine that would have inflated the budget to the point where they would have had to choose between Jim Parsons and Monterey Bay. ummm, not a bad idea.
I agree with Corey. This was an ok movie, but could have been so much better.
In my own community, my assessment of the movie has mostly been met with strong criticism from other birders. That fact alone speaks to the core of my feelings about this film. I think as an avid birder, you might find it somewhat amusing to laugh at our own foibles. However, I find it difficult to believe that a non-birder would get much of anything from watching this movie. It’s not really that funny, and the story is fairly lame. Some birders might just be caught up in the enthusiasm of watching a movie about their beloved past-time.
I enjoyed the book, so am recommending it instead of the movie.
There are always two important moments in art. Someone has to be the first, and someone has to be the best.
Now we have the first mainstream birding movie. The best mainstream birding movie will have to be directed by someone like the Coen brothers, who have a knack for portraying offbeat obsessiveness and subcultural milieus in a way that is accessible to outsiders (although to be fair, I’ve never heard a serious bowler talk about The Big Lebowski. Maybe it’s totally fake bowling?)
(And it will have to be based on one of my books, I hope.)
Corey, your review sums up my feelings pretty nicely. There were definitely a few funny parts, but I left the theater unimpressed and a bit let down. And seeing it with a few non-birder friends, I couldn’t help but cringe at all the painfully not funny parts that were supposed to be comic relief. (Who answers a phone call by imitating a Whimbrel? Seriously?) Especially unfortunate were all the punch lines that as I birder I got, but that I knew my friends would not understand. The move does not do a great job of conveying why each bird is so cool (although Jack explaining why American Golden-Plover is his favorite was an exception). Sure, they were incredibly unlikely to see that Great Spotted Woodpecker along the road–but the movie doesn’t explain that it’s usually an ocean away from North America. For all viewers know, it could normally just keep to the tops of trees deep in (North American) woods! Unfortunately, I feel The Big Year falls short of conveying birding’s rewards to non-birder viewers; all the inaccuracies don’t impress the birding audience either.
If you’re a birder, it’s probably worth watching for the laughs you will get. But don’t expect your companions to feel the same way.
Hi Corey,
Nice job. I know that I’ve perhaps seemed to overpraise the film on the ABA blog and on BIRDCHAT, but that’s mostly because I do think we can use it as a bit of a recruitment tool, or at least a conversation opener, for quite a while to come. And though it’s tanking at the box office, it still could have decently large audience and a modest positive impact for our community, even if Hollywood think’s it’s all a bad joke.
I said after my first viewing that TBY, for me as a birder, was, “…was entertaining and fun, though with some some serious flaws.” I was asked by a Facebook friend what I saw as serious flaws. They closely parallel your comments:
“I thought most of the CGI birds were dreadful. Exceptions: Himalayan Snowcock and Xantus’ Hummingbird.
Almost all of the hooting and bird imitating was off. Especially the “Flammers” bit in open scrub. In daylight.
Much of the “physics” of birding was off. Not serious flaw, perhaps, but dislocating…all these people staring into binoculars for way longer than birders do. Way more darting and zipping around than in real life.
The idea that winning an ABA Big Year competition makes you, “The best birder in the world.” It’s a flattering conceit for the ABA, in some ways, but also a restrictive one.
Every birder in the movie seemed to doing a Big Year, in one way or another. I think it would have felt truer if they had managed to more clearly convey just how rare and hardcore big year birders are.
A bird blogger who zips around snooping and spying on Big Year birders. Maybe that one’s coming, but it’s not here yet.
There were, of course, buckets of out of place and out of season birds. Those things I found more entertaining and funny than serious.
Finally, I thought the most serious flaw was the comedy itself. The movie was often light and sweet and a bit thin where I would have preferred a headier, spicier brew.”
I think B- is an eminently reasonable grade to give it.
Anyhow, I’m digging that we have this movie to talk about. I think it’s opened some really interesting conversations about how we DO get a wider audience into birding.
As an ecologist who studies birds I think I am in the perfect middle between non-birders and birders where I can laugh at both and myself all at the same time. I am not a birder, I don’t chase down rarities and have no desire to spend an entire day navigating into an isolated canyon on the US Mexico birder just to see a Stripe-headed Sparrow in the US when I can see hundreds at a time in Mexico. I do however spend an inordinate amount of time laying in, crawling through and measuring blackberries and poison ivy in pursuit of nests. We all have our thing! I laugh at myself when I am doing it because, lets face it, it is a bit nuts! Nearly impossible explain and extremely non-entertaining as a movie topic without embellishment! When I found myself calling out the inaccuracies I ended up laughing at myself as much as the idea of any big year competitor getting excited about a Sandhill Crane. Reveling in the fact that I am a big bird geek was all part of the fun. All of the things you didn’t like were things only people in the bird community would really know or care about and didn’t take away from the message of the movie. I just enjoyed the fact that I knew they were wrong and moved on. The point was to show how nutty people are that they are willing to go birding in a dump. Come on, it is nuts, and you should laughing at yourself while doing it. Isn’t that part of the fun of birding? In the end this movie reminded me of how much I love birds and watching birds and watching birds with my friends. It got the feeling right.
I also found this movie extremely laugh out loud funny and touching. I mean, come on, Steve Martin did the Wild and Crazy Guy dance after seeing a Snow Cock! I almost peed my pants! I did not expect the birds to be totally correct, this is Hollywood, I was shocked they did as well as they did. I very much appreciated the moments where they talked about what was awesome about birds and just took a moment to be in awe of them. The montage in the middle with the bird names and the collage of pics at the end were wonderful.
To see a movie where the heros aren’t athletes or entertainers but real people was refreshing. It was a movie that touched on my world and where I felt a part of the message and a part of the joke too. Maybe someone will be interested enough to look into which birds they all saw that year, to look into what fallout really is, to look into Attu and pelagic birds and start chasing a few. Maybe they will look up rare bird alert and get turned onto things. You never know, but at least these things were talked about and displayed on a national big screen. That is the point. Saying the movie was bad because the facts (which they plainly stated were not going to be correct) weren’t up to our bird geek standards does a dis-service to the opportunity we are got to be on the national stage. Not everyone will want to do this or care, but a few more may after watching this film.
Thanks, all. I just wish I got this many comments on my book reviews…
Sheesh. Everybody’s a critic or an expert. Having seen the movie, read the book, and read most of the reviews … I can appreciate at least why the “professional” movie critics have given the film lukewarm or mixed reviews. From a film standpoint, the characters’ journeys are fairly straight-forward and even trite. Pretty much like most Hollywood films. I would have liked to have seen a bit more from the movie. A little more character development for the 3 protagonists. A little more narrative on why featured birds were so prized or rare. But I can’t really understand “reviews” (like this one) from the birding public, especially bloggers. Is everyone really that upset that their bumperstickers or logo’ed water bottles didn’t make it into the film? That they weren’t hired as a consultant? That a Pink-footed Goose was found in a hot spring in the Rockies in winter?
The most important part of the book … the depiction of birders and the bird-watching community was really pretty accurate. And moreover it was largely positive! I see more comments from bloggers deriding the depiction of the blogger than from those who shake their heads at a birder losing two wives over his obsession! We know the latter is true on a very small scale and not representative (hopefully) of the majority of listers. But why the hostility over the blogger depiction? I know, I know … he should have been played by George Clooney, or better yet Daniel Craig in his 007 tuxedo. But to think there are no quirky or off beat characters amongst birders/bloggers is ridiculous. Also the assertion that no birders/bloggers deal in rumor and scandal and “who has just seen what bird for his life list” is again misguided. Doesn’t the most famous, or infamous, UK birder pretty much do exactly that? And how many threads on birdforum are much worse than the movie blogger’s site. The CGI birds weren’t always the most life-like, but it didn’t really detract from the movie. I have seen far worse special effects in far more big-budget effects-heavy movies. Flying cows not moving their legs in “Twister”. Pierce Brosnan kite-surfing a glacial tidal wave in “Die Another Day”. Hell, the model shark in Jaws (my favorite movie) never even moved it tail when it swam! Ichthyologists, no doubt, are still aghast.
The criticism that the Big Year champ is the Best Birder in the World is obviously a fallacy. But it really isn’t that far-fetched to see some sort of esteem amongst listers fall along the lines of listing numbers. Nor to see how competitors involved in the competition view the champ as such.
The criticism that it is somehow “lazy” for the birding mistakes to make it into the film is valid, but maybe a bit over the top. It is completely believable that a Big Year birder on a tight budget who lives in Virginia could “miss” Sandhill Crane until the latter part of the year. Just as Lynn Barber missed Connecticut Warbler (maybe?) on hers or Komito waited pretty deep into the year to tick off Long-eared Owl. The Pink-footed Goose could have been switched for a different species that Martin and Black missed early in the year. But let’s not act as if birds don’t show up in weird places all the time. Same for the Great Spotted Woodpecker. It was a much better choice than a Kiwi! Though it would have been nice, and a bit more representative I think, if Owen Wilson had immediately reported the bird to a hotline. And I have seen a crowd of birders run from a Cerulean Warbler to a Connecticut Warbler to a Kirtland’s Warbler at Magee Marsh in a similar fashion to the High Island scene.
It seems like too many bird people went just to see how many faults they could find. The listing culture was pretty accurate. The humanization of listers was pretty fair. The stereotypes of the Jane Hathaway’s were abandoned. There was even a reasonable amount of diversity amongst the birders.
So, while the grade is probably fair, and a few of the criticisms are valid. The most heavy downgrades seem to be due to bird problems not really birder problems. The movie is about birders. The book is about birders. The inaccurate use of parsec and the ability of one photon torpedo shot through an unguarded vent to destroy the most powerful weapon in the universe didn’t really dampen my enjoyment of Star Wars. I doubt the bird mess-ups will ultimately do that for this movie. Besides, I doubt any birder will see this movie and then quit birding. I doubt any prospective birder will see the movie and lose interest in pursuing biridng. But maybe a few fledgling birders will hatch. That can’t be bad. Even if it is only one.
@Derek Courtney: Word Count Tool let me know that your comment was eight words longer than my review: 822-814. I’m impressed!
@Corey: Haha! Well you did include hyperlinks. You should get points for that 🙂
Ehhhh. I was so hoping you’d love it, which is almost like saying I was hoping I’d love it, too.
Watching the marquees in our Appalachian Ohio town. The film will sink or swim, but even if it dogpaddles, it may never make it to this deserted shore.
I really liked the book, and I’m delighted it has done so well. That opens more horizons for all natural history writers. I still remember the sinking in my stomach when my agent, who oughta know, described natural history writing as a “niche market,” and the market for books of natural history essays as an even narrower niche within a niche. Having read the book, I’m convinced that Obmascik’s sparkling prose and deft character sketches, not the subject matter, are what sold Hollywood. Birding is oddball to Hollywood. Getting the birding details right had to be pretty far down the list of concerns. I feel for the birding consultant. You can’t correct errors if you aren’t consulted about them. I can just hear the conversation: “Who’s gonna know or care if we get this right? What? One half of one percent of the people who see this movie? Fuggedaboutit!”
Just one of the things I like about you, Corey, is your honesty. It’s a breath of fresh air.
Just returned from seeing the movie – you nailed with: “If you are not a birder there is no reason to see it in the theater because despite the fact that the movie is about birding there is very little that is exciting or funny or original and little in the plot that is not cliched.” Perfect synopsis – spot on.
These guys traveled to the remotest corners of the 49 states and then got excited about a Sandhill – not buying it. Best moment of the movie – describing the wonderment of migration with the plover.
I was impressed by some of the sounds that came out of Rashida Jones’ mouth.
I have to say, I agree with pretty much everything Corey said, and then some.
As a fan of the book, many of the things that got changed really irked me. Like, it seemed Jack Black didn’t have as much of a problem getting time off from work as Greg Miller did in real life. (And wouldn’t it have been more dramatic to replicate the really stark apartment he lived in, post-divorce, than to show him living with his parents?) I loved that they included the Jack Black character eating pretzels and peanut butter in the hotel room … but in the book, there’s a really important reason why he’s doing that, and I think expressing it would have made the movie more fascinating.
At the end of the day, I am glad I saw it, but wish I could have waited until it came out on video.
What I think *really* would have made an excellent film would be to do it documentary-style. Obviously there’s not a ton of footage sitting around of Levantin/Komito/Miller on their Big Years. But surely Ken Burns could have come up with something! Or, profile some real-life gonzo birders as they move through a big year; “The King of Kong” proved to be a huge hit, documentary-wise, and I think a similar approach would have done much more to show people how cool birds are (and how obsessive birders can be), even if it didn’t reach quite so many.
@Carrie: there has already been a movie about the Mighty Ducks. You won’t be the first, so be the best.
@Jochen: Well said. And as much as I grumbled during The Big Year, I figured that whatever complaints we have would probably pale in comparison to marine biologists who study penguins and then have to cope with the imminent release of “Happy Feet 2”!
@Meredith: Yeeeees!!! 🙂 🙂
Here’s why they won’t be spending any more on publicity.
http://stokesbirdingblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/big-year-movie-is-flop-heres-why-but-go.html
Did they get the bird songs correct? Didn’t see the film but I saw a “making of” where the songs did not match what was being called out?
Well my wife and I were entertained this afternoon by THE BIG YEAR . We certainly are not big time birders, but have always been interested in observing them in the backyard feeders. There were only 7 of us in the theatre. Movie was entertaining , but seemed (at least to me) as kind of a tweener. Partial story, partial character builder, partial scenery, partial birding. Bottom line we enjoyed it.
Im not a birder and I made fun of my birder roommate in college. I dont know why you think this movie isnt good. I enjoyed it a lot. I think think it felt cliched, it was funny enough for the subject matter, not a frathouse fart joke movie, and the part with the great grey owl when teh father went missing had our hearts skipping beats til he found him staring at the thing, and even in cgi it looked just awesome. I found this review because I was trying to get a list of birds seen in the movie, because surpiringly enough, this movie was good enough to get me to a take an interest in the birds around me. I actually want to learn the names of the birds in my neighbourhood because its silly I can name a car from a distance but not the living creatures that havent changed at all since I was born.
It was made at a time when if you wanted birds you shot specific species on film at huge cost (like Winged Migration), or if you went to stock, a lot of what was available was in standard definition video (totally unsuitable to blow up to a 25 foot screen) or HDV (enlarged at great expense). And budgets are budgets. That is why some of the shots were grainy. That is why many of the shots were very brief, and only identifiable by experienced birders. That is also why so much was computer generated, or birds were represented by names on the screen. Believe me, they wanted to show the birds of Attu, but just couldn’t get the footage that would blow up to the big screen, from my group, or anyone else.
Yet they went ahead with the movie. When have you ever before seen a Scarlet Tanager on a movie screen? Or a Golden-crowned Sparrow? I suspect never. Did you ever think that a Xantus’s Hummingbird would be shown in a Hollywood movie, and have the field marks of a Xantus’s, even if it was computer generated? The difficulties were evident early, and it maybe would have been financially better to just throw in the towel, but the producers went ahead and gave us the chance to share with the world those things that we all chase every week.
This movie wasn’t an ode to a single bird, like Pale Male, the Red-tailed Hawk. It wasn’t an expose on the life of penguins where you can set up a film studio on an ice flow and the birds just act for you. This was about flighty migrants; birds under 10 inches long; over 700 birds. They had to use what they could get, what they could afford, and what would work on the screen. They made a huge effort to keep everything authentic.
OK, the Great Spotted Woodpecker, and the Pink-footed Goose were a stretch. They were written into the script from day one, developed lives of their own, and would not go away, but they were respected as the mega-rarities they would have been if seen. I suspect that no one has seen more authenticity in a non-PBS, BBC or National Geographic movie than was seen here, and I think the producers should be praised for their efforts. This was truly a movie about us, and frankly was made for us more than for anyone else. It may be the only time someone does this. It will become a cult classic among birders.
I have just seen The Big Year and feel compelled to comment on it. Granted, I contributed half a dozen or so of the bird shots in the movie, and if you want to fault me for “defending my own”, that’s perfectly fine, but all the comments I have read so far have neglected one salient point.
This movie was an experiment, and a bold one, for Fox Studios.
It was made at a time when if you wanted birds you shot specific species on film at huge cost (like Winged Migration), or if you went to stock, a lot of what was available was in standard definition video (totally unsuitable to blow up to a 25 foot screen) or HDV (enlarged at great expense). And budgets are budgets. That is why some of the shots were grainy. That is why many of the shots were very brief, and only identifiable by experienced birders. That is also why so much was computer generated, or birds were represented by names on the screen. Believe me, they wanted to show the birds of Attu, but just couldn’t get the footage that would blow up to the big screen, from my group, or anyone else.
Yet they went ahead with the movie. When have you ever before seen a Scarlet Tanager on a movie screen? Or a Golden-crowned Sparrow? I suspect never. Did you ever think that a Xantus’s Hummingbird would be shown in a Hollywood movie, and have the field marks of a Xantus’s, even if it was computer generated? The difficulties were evident early, and it maybe would have been financially better to just throw in the towel, but the producers went ahead and gave us the chance to share with the world those things that we all chase every week.
This movie wasn’t an ode to a single bird, like Pale Male, the Red-tailed Hawk. It wasn’t an expose on the life of penguins where you can set up a film studio on an ice flow and the birds just act for you. This was about flighty migrants; birds under 10 inches long; over 700 birds. They had to use what they could get, what they could afford, and what would work on the screen. They made a huge effort to keep everything authentic.
OK, the Great Spotted Woodpecker, and the Pink-footed Goose were a stretch. They were written into the script from day one, developed lives of their own, and would not go away, but they were respected as the mega-rarities they would have been if seen. I suspect that no one has seen more authenticity in a non-PBS, BBC or National Geographic movie than was seen here, and I think the producers should be praised for their efforts. This was truly a movie about us, and frankly was made for us more than for anyone else. It may be the only time someone does this. It will become a cult classic among birders.
I’m a birder and enjoyed it. It was innocuous. B- was a fair grade, but I think it could be enjoyable to non-birders. As far as all the errors go, what pelagic tour operator would ever in a million years take someone out who knocked on their door on Thanksgiving?
Funny, wholesome and unoffensive mild comedy. Steve Martin shines in a perfect casting as the rich eccentric. Owen Wilson does little stretching in his lead role and Jack Black was refreshingly and remarkably restrained as the ‘bird listener’. Read Judy Thorburn’s review at: http://www.theflickchicks.com/index.php/movie-reviews/judys-movie-reviews-alphabetical/985-the-big-year–jack-black-owen-wilson-steve-martin-anjelica-huston–review.html
Aside from the funny actors, I like the movie because of the story about bird watching. That is one of my hobbies. Ang I was surprised that they used Kowa BD series binoculars which I’ve been also using. The BD performed exceptionally well as he checked off over 740 species including his sought after Great Gray Owl and Pink-footed Goose. Great choice!
I am a backyard birder and my husband and 18 year old son are not birders at all, but we loved this movie. It was so refreshing to see a movie without dirty jokes and sex scenes throughout. This movie was funny without being fake, exciting without something being blown up, and heart touching without unnatural drama. I have added it to my movie collection and will watch it for years to come. Bird watching is one of Americans favorite pastimes. It’s about time someone made a movie about it.
My 14 year old son and I are not “Birders”, we have aquired 3 pet birds over the years but that doesn’t make us experts. I am sitting here with a rosy parrot on my shoulder after watching The Big Year for the 10th time and am disappointed that more people didn’t like the movie. I thought it was funny, captivating and while there may have been inaccurate dipictments in the movie, it was fun.
My son wants to start Birding and see how many we can see in our state of Montana in a year. We will not be maxing out any credit cards or taking expensive trips, we will just pay more attention while we are outside. That is my hope that the movie was trying to convey to folks.
I actually liked the movie. I never knew there were people out there that loved birds so much. I think it is heart warming and a great film. I hate that you have to dog it out like that. I feel like if you think you can do a better job, then go out and make a better movie and I will go see it and compare them and tell you how I feel. I know nothing about bird watching so your thinking well of course you would say this. But, I liked it and that is that. By the way, good luck with the better movie, would love to see it.
Bought the DVD, watching it with family at home. My non-birder family says “So, THAT’s what you were talking about…” It opens a door to them about what I do even if it does not reveal so much about the WHY I do it. Its an easy to like little movie that will play well over and over. Yeah, its not entirely accurate but what movie is?
Just saw the movie with my whole family – parents, myself, my kids – and we all really enjoyed it. My 10 year old son has started reading the book. We have been on birding walks with the Portland Audubon society and have taken some bird identification classes through Audubon although we are not serious birders. My son has been keeping a list of the birds he has seen for the last 3 years. But after watching the movie, he wants to get more serious about it. I think the movie is overall enjoyable and I think it encourages people to get outside and interact with nature more. What can be wrong with that? I think I might even buy the DVD. It’s great that Jack Black, Steven Martin, and Owen Wilson all signed up to do this movie. If the story had been a bit stronger, perhaps the movie would have faired better. Being overly critical of some factual mistakes (which they admitted would be the case at the beginning of the movie), does not help birding or the representation of the birder community.
I think you are wrong about the movie. I have never thought about going birding but have thought about it after seeing the movie. And don’t forget it is a movie so “CHILL”
I’m not a birder, but I have to say, I really enjoyed this movie. As far as critiquing goes, every movie (even the really good ones) have disparities or inaccuracies. As long as they got most of it right, coupled with a nice story/acting, as far as I am concerned, I’m happy. I’m not sure the in-n-outs of an actual big year, but I sure did enjoy watching one carried out in this movie…not going overboard in anyway, nevertheless, a comical yet insightful movie on birding. Two thumbs up!
As an avid upland game bird hunter, all my focus had been on whether my dog had flushed up a quail or medolark. Bought the DVD and enjoy it often (for the entertainment valuse). The Dove hunting season starts on 1 Sept across the midwest and I was out there as usual in Illinois. This year had been extremely hot and dry. So as I set in the sunflower field waiting for a dove to show up, I started to wonder what all those other little birds I was seeing, really were. I must have seen a dozen sparrow size birds in a color range from yellow to bright violet. The half dozen differt swallows drove me crazy until I determined they were not dove. During that one day, I also saw a few hawks, turkey vultur, a Bold Eagle (one of only a few birds I was sure of), flock of teal ducks, 5 total dove that I never got a shot at and lots more that were about the size of robins.
The moving really opened my eyes to what I have been missing and made me wish I knew more about what I was seeing in my hunting trips to the field for dove, ducks, geese, quail, and pheasant.
Like I said above, I’m not a birder, but I saw several bird sightings reported near Carlyle Lake, Illinois and I wanted to pass on some information that a Birder group may be interested in. You could call it a RFA (Rare Fish Alert) and it is something that is observable the way you would a bird in a very restricted area. If anyone is headed to Carlyle Lake, they may want to drive down behind the Damn, take a short walk up the stairs to the top of the Damn, walk to the middle of the spillway, and look down into the current. At first glance they may not see anything, but if they look closer/longer, they will realize there are 100s if not 1,000s of Bighead/Asian Carp weighing 30-40 pounds each churning around in that current. That would be amazing, but the real rarity is that there is an albino Bighead/Asian Carp that is about 40 lbs amongst that group. The foam from the released water is pure white, but if you look hard near the middle for about 10-15 minutes there will be no doubt when you see a creamy white figure come up from the depths. When I first saw him, I thought it was a white plastic bag in the water. I first saw him a couple months ago and I saw him again this afternoon 2:15 pm, 8 Oct 2012.
Not sure how rare an albino Bighead Carp is, but to be able to see one in the wild over an extended period of time has to be extremely rare. When I first saw it, I felt like I was in the wild West seeing a white buffalo in a massive heard. He comes all the way to the surface and can be clearly seen with the entire body being creamy white. The rest of the Carp have black heads and bodies.
I figure the Illinois Birders’ could make an asterisk on their record for such a unique sighting, when they see him. Hope someone with a good camera can get a picture. I tried with my cell phone, but you are too high above the spillway to see him in the photo.
I saw the movie and I would have to say the revue here is a bit of a ‘Debi downer’ for a movie that wasn’t as debi downer as the review here has made it out to be. I understand where an avid birder might be a little critical on its presentation. However i think its a movie about really seeing things that most people totally take for granted. Really seeing and listening are two properties of human nature that in this day and age are especially taken for granted. Hey i’m not a birder but the movie did make me want stop, look and listen a little more often.
I have to say myself and my partner watched this film last night on sky and we both enjoyed it. Surprised to hear this?? Well i came across this site as i was interested in “The Big Year” and wondered how much of this competetion was true- yes myself and my partner are not birders, but all the same we did enjoy the film. We of course didn’t pick up on obvious flaws as birders would’ve but we did expect them, hence why i thought i’d look up birding and the big year. I too was touched when Jack Black and his dad saw the grey owl in the woods, when Steve Martin finally saw the Humming bird, his face was just satisfaction that he saw it and Owen Wilson’s personal family role, i found to be believing, as i am sure there are a few birders out there that may be obsessed to that point. But from a non birder i can assure you that i enjoyed it and it has caught my attention otherwise i wouldn’t be here on this site now. Admitedly the attraction for us watching the film was the three main stars as we like all of them, and we learnt a few more bird names that we didn’t know yesterday. So for us actors we like, learnt something new and caught our attention for something we knew nothing to very little off. I will just say i wouldn’t have paid to see it in the cinema, but then we only go to the cinema for the big blockbusters. So, other birders, yes watch the film as interst of yours but non birders- watch it and see, you may be pleasantly surprised as we were!!
Saw film on Sky. Agree I wouldn’t pay cinema rates & most of the facts that were incorrect could have been put right without spoiling the film. However as a non-birder I completely disagree with the comments that this film would only be of interest to birders. I enjoyed it in blissful ignorance of the faults! It’s no blockbuster but did give me an insight into a world that to date I have ignored. Perhaps it’s the columnists own pompous conceit that that has spoilt his enjoyment. Surely any publicity on your beloved field of expertise should be appreciated just for awareness sake alone…
I’ve just seen the film on sky and enjoyed it a lot. Great to see Steve bag the Xantu’s hummer (i have seen them on Baja)
I haven’t read all the comments but didn’t anyone see the penguins on the Aleutians, what was all that about?
I really enjoyed the movie, and while it was a B movie there was no stupid over-the-top comedy, no sex or violence it was just really light hearted and fun. And kind of touching. I am not familiar with birding, so I would never have picked up on any of the mistakes you pointed out, but I’m sure ‘birders’ would have had their experience lessened by those mistakes. Overall I thought it was an entertaining movie, I was hoping to find a more positive review on a website like this but to each their own I guess.
I keep seeing life numbers and of course with the big year traveling all over the US, but is there a category where the count is made from a single specfic location (could expand to a square mile) letting the birds come to you throughout the year? I would assume a lake or beach would be the most productive spot, but it would be interesting to see how many birds could be seen from one location over a year time period. I know during an early dove hunt, that I mush have seen well over 30 different birds in one field on 1 Sept. The number totals could go from a single spot, specific county, state, region, etc…
thanks, great blog