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

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.