Skip to main content

Mr Wiggly’s been on bread and water for five years.


Bird on a Wire
(1990)

Journeyman director John Badham is still going, it’s just that he’s been confined to the small screen where his invisible style is ideally suited. Bird forms the second installment of an unofficial action-comedy trilogy (with Stakeout and The Hard Way). Because he’s one of those invisible, “shoot it quick, get it done” hands, most folks probably aren’t aware of who directed Bird, they just know it’s the one that teams up Mel Gibson and Goldie Hawn.

Which is fair enough, frankly, as that’s about all it has going for it. Not a team-up that should be underestimated, as they have fantastic chemistry (and you wouldn’t know that Goldie’s almost a decade Mel’s senior). But really, there’s so little else going for his lazy, by-the-numbers escapade of a con in witness protection who goes on the run with his former girlfriend when the men he testified against set on his trail.

Mediocrity is no barrier to success, of course. I admit that when I first saw the film I thought it was an agreeable, if forgettable, time-passer. But the decades have been less than kind to what is a thoroughly ‘80s movie in all but release date; it came out in the summer of 1990. And was a surprise hit, nestling comfortably in the top ten movies that season while Gibson’s more expensive Air America flopped. But Badham was on a winning streak in the ‘80s. It would be more remembered if he weren’t so damn anonymous; Blue Thunder, War Games, Short Circuit, the aforementioned Stakeout. Bird is run-of-the-mill even by his standards, however. There’s so little effort put into the action scenes, all predictable slow-mo and close-ups of the stars - who are clearly nowhere near the second unit. He rouses himself slightly for the zoo finale, but by then its too late.

Mel’s in “mullet Riggs” mode as Rick Jarmin, except that he ties the back of it in a very silly ponytail. He’s sleepwalking through the role, although a few of the gags (which are mostly terrible) have his fingerprints on them (the opening bit with the dummy legs is just his kind of thing, also getting punched in the face Three Stooges style). Credit to him, though, he remembers to diligently act “shot in the butt” for most of the movie. And he perks up a bit when it comes to a spot of mincing as a gay hairdresser, a sequence that can only fuel the general view of the actor as one of boundless intolerance. But he’s clearly having a hoot with Goldie (playing Marianne Graves), who’s clearly having a hoot with him. It only takes a moment of her infectious laughter to be reminded of how adorable she is (and what a consummate comedienne). Her body double’s arse is in excellent shape too.

The supporting cast (that should be villains really, as hardly anyone else gets a look in) are poorly served. Bill Duke and David Carradine are only memorable in so much as they have presence as actors. Stephen Tobolowsky fares better in so much as this is the most unlikely role you’re likely to see him in; can you imagine Ned Ryerson beating up Martin Riggs? Well, here’s your chance to see it happen.

Hans Zimmer contributes a particularly lousy ‘80s action movie score, which is appropriate icing on an insubstantial cake. I’m not sure whether I should be disturbed or not, but I knew exactly the bits in the movie that were used in the trailer. Since they’re mostly the best bits, you can save yourself the trouble of watching the whole movie and check it out below.

**



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

You seem particularly triggered right now. Can you tell me what happened?

Trailers The Matrix Resurrections   The Matrix A woke n ? If nothing else, the arrival of The Matrix Resurrections trailer has yielded much retrospective back and forth on the extent to which the original trilogy shat the bed. That probably isn’t its most significant legacy, of course, in terms of a series that has informed, subconsciously or otherwise, intentionally or otherwise, much of the way in which twenty-first century conspiracy theory has been framed and discussed. It is however, uncontested that a first movie that was officially the “best thing ever”, that aesthetically and stylistically reinvigorated mainstream blockbuster cinema in a manner unseen again until Fury Road , squandered all that good will with astonishing speed by the time 2003 was over.

Maybe he had one too many peanut butter and fried banana sandwiches.

3000 Miles to Graceland (2001) (SPOILERS) The kind of movie that makes your average Tarantino knockoff look classy, 3000 Miles to Graceland is both aggressively unpleasant and acutely absent any virtues, either as a script or a stylistic exercise. The most baffling thing about it is how it attracted Kevin Costner and Kurt Russell, particularly since both ought to have been extra choosy at this point, having toplined expensive bombs in the previous half decade that made them significantly less bankable names. And if you’re wondering how this managed to cost the $62m reported on Wiki, it didn’t; Franchise Pictures, one of the backers, was in the business of fraudulently inflating budgets .

White nights getting to you?

Insomnia (2002) (SPOILERS) I’ve never been mad keen on Insomnia . It’s well made, well-acted, the screenplay is solid and it fits in neatly with Christopher Nolan’s abiding thematic interests, but it’s… There’s something entirely adequateabout it. It isn’t pushing any kind of envelope. It’s happy to be the genre-bound crime study it is and nothing more, something emphasised by Pacino’s umpteenth turn as an under-pressure cop.

I must remind you that the scanning experience is usually a painful one.

Scanners (1981) (SPOILERS) David Cronenberg has made a career – albeit, he may have “matured” a little over the past few decades, so it is now somewhat less foregrounded – from sticking up for the less edifying notions of evolution and modern scientific thought. The idea that regress is, in fact, a form of progress, and unpropitious developments are less dead ends than a means to a state or states as yet unappreciated. He began this path with some squeam-worthy body horrors, before genre hopping to more explicit science fiction with Scanners , and with it, greater critical acclaim and a wider audience. And it remains a good movie, even as it suffers from an unprepossessing lead and rather fumbles the last furlong, cutting to the chase when a more measured, considered approach would have paid dividends.

Maybe I’m a heel who hates guys who hate heels.

Crimewave (1985) (SPOILERS) A movie’s makers’ disowning it doesn’t necessarily mean there’s nothing of worth therein, just that they don’t find anything of worth in it. Or the whole process of making it too painful to contemplate. Sam Raimi’s had a few of those, experiencing traumas with Darkman a few years after Crimewave . But I, blissfully unaware of such issues, was bowled over by it when I caught it a few years after its release (I’d hazard it was BBC2’s American Wave 2 season in 1988). This was my first Sam Raimi movie, and I was instantly a fan of whoever it was managed to translate the energy and visual acumen of a cartoon to the realm of live action. The picture is not without its problems – and at least some of them directly correspond to why it’s so rueful for Raimi – but that initial flair I recognised still lifts it.

You absolute horror of a human being.

As Good as it Gets (1997) (SPOILERS) James L Brooks’ third Best Picture Oscar nomination goes to reconfirm every jaundiced notion you had of the writer-director-producer’s capacity for the facile and highly consumable, low-cal, fast-food melodramatic fix with added romcom lustre. Of course, As Good as it Gets was a monster hit, parading as it does Jack in a crackerjack, attention-grabbing part. But it’s a mechanical, suffocatingly artificial affair, ponderously paced (a frankly absurd 139 minutes) and infused with glib affirmations and affections. Naturally, the Academy lapped that shit up, because it reflects their own lack of depth and perception (no further comment is needed than Titanic winning the big prize for that year).

Remember. Decision. Consequence.

Day Break (2006) (SPOILERS) Day Break is the rare series that was lucky to get cancelled. And not in a mercy-killing way. It got to tell its story. Sure, apparently there were other stories. Other days to break. But would it have justified going there? Or would it have proved tantalising/reticent about the elusive reason its protagonist has to keep stirring and repeating? You bet it would. Offering occasional crumbs, and then, when it finally comes time to wrap things up, giving an explanation that satisfies no one/is a cop out/offers a hint at some nebulous existential mission better left to the viewer to conjure up on their own. Best that it didn’t even try to go there.

You cut my head off a couple of dozen times.

Boss Level (2021) (SPOILERS) Lest you thought it was nigh-on impossible to go wrong with a Groundhog Day premise, Joe Carnahan, in his swaggering yen for overkill, very nearly pulls it off with Boss Level . I’m unsure quite what became of Carnahan’s early potential, but he seems to have settled on a sub-Tarantino, sub-Bay, sub-Snyder, sub-Ritchie butch bros aesthetic, complete with a tin ear for dialogue and an approach to plotting that finds him continually distracting himself, under the illusion it’s never possible to have too much. Of whatever it is he’s indulging at that moment.

How do you melt somebody’s lug wrench?

Starman (1984) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s unlikely SF romance. Unlikely, because the director has done nothing before or since suggesting an affinity for the romantic fairy tale, and yet he proves surprisingly attuned to Starman ’s general vibes. As do his stars and Jack Nitzsche, furnishing the score in a rare non-showing from the director-composer. Indeed, if there’s a bum note here, it’s the fairly ho-hum screenplay; the lustre of Starman isn’t exactly that of making a silk purse from a sow’s ear, but it’s very nearly stitching together something special from resolutely average source material.

We’re looking into a possible pattern of nationwide anti-Catholic hate crimes.

Vampires aka John Carpenter’s Vampires (1998) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter limps less-than-boldly onward, his desiccated cadaver no longer attentive to the filmic basics of quality, taste, discernment, rhyme or reason. Apparently, he made his pre-penultimate picture to see if his enthusiasm for the process truly had drained away, and he only went and discovered he really enjoyed himself. It doesn’t show. Vampires is as flat, lifeless, shoddily shot, framed and edited as the majority of his ’90s output, only with a repellent veneer of macho bombast spread on top to boot.