High Flying Bird

Name: High Flying Bird
Genre: Drama, Sport
Released: February 8, 2019
Duration: 90 min
Rating: 78
Cast: Andre Holland, Bill Duke, Bobbi A Bordley, Caleb McLaughlin, Eddie Tavares

2019

METASCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 23 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Mixed or average reviews based on 33 Ratings

See All

5.9

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5.9	Your Score
5.9	User Score Mixed or average reviews based on 33 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

High Flying Bird

Now Playing: High Flying Bird

Movie Details & Credits

Netflix | Release Date: February 8, 2019 | TV-MA

Starring: Andre Holland, Bill Duke, Bobbi A Bordley, Caleb McLaughlin, Eddie Tavares, Farah Bala, Glenn Fleshler, Jeryl Prescott, Joy Taylor, Justin Hurtt-Dunkley, Kyle MacLachlan, Melvin Gregg, Michael Durodola, Michelle Ang, Shannon Sharpe, Skip Bayless, Sonja Sohn, Zachary Quinto, Zazie Beetz

Summary: In the midst of a pro basketball lockout, sports agent Ray Burke (André Holland) finds himself caught in the face-off between the league and the players. His career is on the line, but Ray is playing for higher stakes. With only 72 hours to pull off a daring plan, he outmaneuvers all the power-players as he uncovers a loophole that couldIn the midst of a pro basketball lockout, sports agent Ray Burke (André Holland) finds himself caught in the face-off between the league and the players. His career is on the line, but Ray is playing for higher stakes. With only 72 hours to pull off a daring plan, he outmaneuvers all the power-players as he uncovers a loophole that could change the game forever. The outcome raises questions of who owns the game – and who ought to. … Expand

Director: Steven Soderbergh

Genre(s): Drama, Sport

Rating: TV-MA

Runtime: 90 min

See All Details and Credits

Awards & Rankings

95	#95 Best Movie of 2019

Watch Now

Stream On

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

David Ehrlich

Jan 28, 2019

The film is funny, quick-witted, and even throws in a little sex for good measure. Best of all, its various competing ideas eventually knot together in such satisfying ways that the didacticism required to bind them up feels more like a feature than a bug. Read full review

A.O. Scott

Feb 7, 2019

The intellectual virtuosity on display is somehow both ostentatious and casual. The performances — Holland’s in particular, full of sadness, guile and audacity — feel the same way. Read full review

David Sims

Feb 10, 2019

Soderbergh’s unorthodox film release and cheap, idiosyncratic shooting style are ideal fits for the director’s fascinating, speculative story about the future of the NBA. Read full review

The Guardian Henry Barnes

Feb 7, 2019

In picking at a system until it’s threaded, High Flying Bird is a classic Soderbergh construct. Read full review

Dan Kois

Feb 8, 2019

In its portrayal of black athletes and their families navigating a system that both depends on them and abases them, High Flying Bird is a low-key act of subversion that just happens also to be a sleek, entertaining drama. Read full review

Jake Coyle

Feb 13, 2019

High Flying Bird is a heady movie, full of political thought about sport, entertainment, race and power. Rather than float on production value, it sustains itself on the tension of ideas, exchanged rapid-fire in gleaming office towers. Read full review

Tim Grierson

Jan 28, 2019

Although compelling ideas float through High Flying Bird, the film is neither well crafted or intellectually rigorous enough to compensate for a generally lacklustre presentation. Read full review

SEE ALL 23 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

ahmedaiman1999

Feb 14, 2019

Not my cuppa tea, as I expected. But I just wanted the movie to be more engaging for me in a way or another. Maybe more delving into the characters, or more focus on the rivalry the movie gave me a glimpse of would have made me more intrigued. That said, High Flying Bird is a quite solidNot my cuppa tea, as I expected. But I just wanted the movie to be more engaging for me in a way or another. Maybe more delving into the characters, or more focus on the rivalry the movie gave me a glimpse of would have made me more intrigued. That said, High Flying Bird is a quite solid sports movie that further proves that Soderbergh's new filmmaking technology works pretty well, and that he has plenty of buttons to push using this tech. It also proves that André Holland has a massive talent that should not be underestimated.

(7/10)… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

JLuis_001

Dec 16, 2019

This film is one of those occasions when Soderbergh puzzles me because once again he shows how unequal his work as a director can be.

High Flying Bird is a rather interesting and entertaining film that has many of the best and incisive attributes of the director but before this one heThis film is one of those occasions when Soderbergh puzzles me because once again he shows how unequal his work as a director can be.

High Flying Bird is a rather interesting and entertaining film that has many of the best and incisive attributes of the director but before this one he released Unsane, a minor film in my opinion and after this one he released The Laundromat, which is perhaps one of his worst films.
How does High Flying Bird look between the two of them and among his filmography? That's the problem with Soderbergh and a pretty recurring one.

Maybe he can surprise in terms of never knowing what he'll do next and the quality his next project might have but it's still a little annoying. But at least this one worked out for him.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

dennis_gt

Apr 5, 2019

More of an interesting experiment than it is a "great" movie. You'll appreciate it more if you know a little about the director's recent history and a little about they way the sports league's exploit their labor. Despite what you may read, this isn't a "basketball" movie. It's a movieMore of an interesting experiment than it is a "great" movie. You'll appreciate it more if you know a little about the director's recent history and a little about they way the sports league's exploit their labor. Despite what you may read, this isn't a "basketball" movie. It's a movie about the way industry uses talent. Soderbergh, unhappy with the way the studio system has abandoned mid-budget movies, recently tried to make a mainstream film without a marketing budget and it failed to reach audiences despite good reviews.

The sports leagues regularly have labor stoppages because the 30 or so owners who collect money for as long as they like don't want an equitable split with the players who have a limited earning window.

That's what this movie is about. It's based on a play so it is dialog heavy. It was shot on an iPhone so it's got a different look to it. If those things interest you, this is worth your time.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

GrantD243

May 12, 2019

I'm still not a fan of Soderbergh's insistence on filming everything on iPhones, but the story itself is very focused and doesn't have any fat. The dialogue and acting make this film far better than I expected it to be.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

LamontRaymond

Feb 10, 2019

I like the actors in this "film", and I love Soderbergh, but this is really just a cute piece of fluff. The problem with many of these "quick" movies is that it's often tough to hear exactly what they're saying. They step on each other's dialogue, and it's a really good thing it's onI like the actors in this "film", and I love Soderbergh, but this is really just a cute piece of fluff. The problem with many of these "quick" movies is that it's often tough to hear exactly what they're saying. They step on each other's dialogue, and it's a really good thing it's on Netflix, because you can rewind to try and figure out what you've missed. Not a pleasant experience. It's an interesting exploration of the relationship between ownership and talent in a sports league, but is ultimately so inconsequential, it's tough to have an impact. The best contrast here is Margin Call - another movie with the excellent Zachary Quinto. That covered a small slice of a very large controversy/incident, but it was so much more urgent and compelling. Quick note before I go: if you want to see an Excellent Soderbergh movie about sports, check out Logan Lucky. One of my favorite movies in recent years, and it got criminally low attention. Props to Harry Edwards, btw.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

marcmifsud

Feb 13, 2019

BREAKDOWN

Writing (Tarell Alvin McCraney) 2/10: I never knew you could make a basketball movie with only dialogue. The entire movie was just conversation to conversation to conversation. Basketball is barely played in this film. The most we see of it is a single shot in a YouTube video. YouBREAKDOWN

Writing (Tarell Alvin McCraney) 2/10: I never knew you could make a basketball movie with only dialogue. The entire movie was just conversation to conversation to conversation. Basketball is barely played in this film. The most we see of it is a single shot in a YouTube video. You should be able to write a film, remove all the dialogue, and still have something comprehensible. If you remove all of the dialogue from 'High Flying Bird,' there are only blank pages. There is no action and, most importantly, no heart. It feels like there is no passion and no emotion thrown into this screenplay whatsoever. In every scene, the characters seem as bored as I was watching it. The only glimmer of hope I was holding onto was the mystery of Erick's 'Bible' which stayed in its package since the first scene of the movie. I was disappointed to find that it served no use to the plot and had no semblance of satisfaction when it was revealed. If the point they were going for was that, with all the religious themes thrown around in the movie, he didn't need his Bible to find who he was and live without an agent, then they really missed the mark.

Performances 5/10: The acting in this film is one of the better aspects of it. Andrè Holland does a good job as Ray and Zazie Beetz does a good job as always. It was also nice seeing Kyle MacLachlan and Zachary Quinto who carried their scenes. Melvin Gregg however barely finds the energy he needs. His acting is subpar compared to everyone else, and that says something when everyone in this film looks bored.

Cinematography (Steven Soderbergh) 4/10: Soderbergh needs to understand that this iPhone gimmick is fun and inspiring as a concept, but it isn't practical. There are reasons why uber expensive Red Epics or Arris are used, it's because they make the picture look nice and comfortable to look at. Overexposed backgrounds and terrible color profiles are distracting and ugly. Also, there is barely a stabilizer in iPhones so when an actor hits a table or walks, the camera shakes and it's noticeable. Also, Soderbergh breaks the 180-degree rule a lot for seemingly no reason. During the film, I was trying to figure out why he suddenly flipped sides and I couldn't figure out why. There was no reason for it. The only redeeming factor for the cinematography is that there were some shots that looked cool, especially considering the camera it was shot on, but Soderbergh needs to give up this gimmick.

Editing (Steven Soderbergh) 3/10: To go along with his not good cinematography, Soderbergh combines it with his bad editing. This goes hand-in-hand with his breaking of the 180-degree rule. In addition, during a two-person dialogue (which was 99% of this film) the film stays on a third person not saying anything as if they're having some big reaction to the conversation, but they aren't. Soderbergh just stays on a bored actor. The only reason his editing isn't getting a 1/10 is that the film is still comprehensible.

Enjoyment 2/10: Normally I don't like to think of a film as worse because it's boring. Take 'Roma' as an example. Most of the film is slow and boring, but it still tells a brilliant story through action and subtext. You can remove most dialogue and have it still be interesting. But because 'High Flying Bird' is almost all dialogue with almost no action at all, a lot of it is hard to follow. I would have fallen asleep to this film had I not finished a cup of coffee immediately before watching it. I will say, it could have been worse. It wasn't painful to watch by any means, but I wish there was some shred of excitement in the plot.

Musical Score (David Wilder Savage) 5/10: Score? This film had a SCORE? It did not feel like it. Most scenes needed some kind of music to be more interesting. It needed some ambiance to give it some atmosphere instead of just the sounds of New York City. Although, I did very much enjoy the opening song. It was fun and was a good opener that made me disappointed by the end.

Sound Mixing 4/10: The sound is rough in this film. The transitions from inside to outside are hard to listen to because of how harsh they are. They needed ambiance in the form of music or just something nondiegetic to give it life.

Production Design (Andy Eklund) 8/10: The design of this movie is pretty nice. Each setting is unique in its own way and tells a little bit about the characters they belong to. The gym set was especially nice and fitting.

Overall 4/10: Steven Soderbergh needs to give up the gimmicks and just stick to the stories. I can't say anything bad about him wearing so many hats because it's worked well in the past, but if he focuses less on the iPhone gimmick and goes back to traditional filmmaking, he'd have better films. Also, Tarell Alvin McCraney needs to write better screenplays.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

SEE ALL 6 REVIEWS