rdd@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) (05/26/90)
BIRD ON A WIRE
[Spoilers]
A film review by Robert Dorsett
Copyright 1990 Robert Dorsett
BIRD ON A WIRE is the latest star vehicle for Mel Gibson and Goldie
Hawn. It features Gibson as Rick Jarmin; Hawn as his ex-wife*, Marianne
Graves. To cut a very long, convoluted story short, Gibson's in the
Federal Witness Protection Program. He has been forced to transfer
from invisible job to invisible job over a fifteen-year period; part of
his cover has been to pretend that he's dead. He runs into his wife
(who is now a high-powered attorney) one day, much to her surprise.
Coincidentally, someone who doesn't like him wants him dead, and spends
a great deal of time trying to do just that*. Gibson is forced to use
her, and, in the ensuing chase, they get to rekindle their earlier
romance.
The story is very, very weak, and has little more than Hawn looking
cute and Gibson posturing. There are numerous allusions to Gibson's
gluteus maximus; it quickly gets boring after a while. The rest of the
film amounts to gasoline explosions, car chases, lots of noise, the
inexplicable bad guys, and jokes about the conflict between Gibson's
working-class character and Hawn's refined character (And Guess What:
Love Triumphs! SURPRISE!!!). YAWN.
There are numerous product placements: BMW, Four Seasons, Apple
(including an obscene user interface on a Mac; I don't know why Apple
let them do that--looks like a PC), etc. I guess they didn't manage to
get an American Express or Visa endorsement, but every time Hawn says
"my gold card," her face is away from the camera--don't be surprised if
it's dubbed in when it comes out on video tape. :-)
DOWNER
If you want to see yet another film with Gibson as a Sex Symbol,
Hawn as a Giddy Flake, and Carradine as a Bad Guy with an Attitude, SEE
THIS MOVIE. I, however, was bored out of my mind (and judging by all
the heads propped on hands near the end, everyone else was, too). Skip
it: 5/10 (two stars). It's worth about a buck: if you must see it,
catch it on cable or video.
* SPOILERS
I may have been dozing, but didn't they technically say that Gibson
ran off at the altar? If so, how could Hawn be the self-described
grieving widow (hotel scene)? Am I missing something in their use of
idiom?
And the entire premise of the the movie: why the hell were these
people after Gibson in the first place? Why waste the time or effort?
And why would the people the ex-DEA people were doing a deal with want
Gibson dead? The story has holes one can drive a truck through. I can
buy Carradine's character wanting Gibson dead, but wasn't he just a
minion, and unlikely to sway the Organization to his point of view?
Revenge apart, why waste time on someone who ceased being a threat
fifteen years previously, and who obviously wants to be left alone (as
evidenced by the lack of contacts with the feds)?
The flying scenes were stupid. Enough said: the
real-plane/helicopter scenes were quite different from the flying
models. When are filmmakers going to realize that models just don't
look like the the real thing? I was interested to note, though, that
the helicopter had a G (Great Britain) prefix, while the airplane had
an N (American) prefix. Where was this thing filmed?
The whole zoo scene was idiotic. I kept on thinking: "Don't they
feed those animals?" And why should the animals pass up fresh, bloody
bait (at the end) to continue to snap at Gibson dangling from the
foot-bridge? And why would the animal go after Hawn's jacket, when she
throws it away, when it has a nice, plump side of meat in front of it?
:-)
Lastly, the movie seems to be intended for television: virtually no
profanity, and surprisingly little physical violence. Only one Good Guy
got waxed; the rest of the film showed Rick and Marianne being *very*
careful not to actually *hurt* the people who were trying to bury them.
Gibson as pacifist? Yeeeesh...
---
Robert Dorsett
Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu
UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd ceej@pawl18.pawl.rpi.edu (Chris J Hillery) (05/26/90)
BIRD ON A WIRE
[Spoilers]
A film review by Chris Hillery
Copyright 1990 Chris Hillery
After reading Robert Dorsett's review of BIRD ON A WIRE, I have but
one question: did we see the same movie? I thoroughly enjoyed this
movie, and disagree with nearly every point Robert made to the movie's
fault. I feel I should at least offer this alternative review; I'll go
approximately in the same order as did he (have his review displaying in
another window; multi-tasking's grand =), so here goes...
I thought the story, while not the world's most original, was far
more than "very, very weak"; it was considerably more literate than most
these days, with no real holes. There were no great surprises (yes,
love triumphs; would the movie be as interesting if they ended up hating
each other?), but plenty enough twists and turns to keep things moving.
I didn't see much of Gibson "posturing"; he was merely trying to save
his life. And Hawn was more than "cute"; she had a definite and
reasonably strong personality of her own. Sure, there was plenty of
action (explosions, car chases (a really good one, I thought), etc);
why is this bad? The movie is an action-comedy.
The one point Mr. Dorsett (don't that sound formal? =)) made
several times was the Bad Guys (tm) were "inexplicable"; I didn't
understand how he arrived at this opinion at all. Obviously they were
(somewhat stereotypical, granted, but hey...) corrupt drug cops, in
search of revenge against the narc that did them in (Gibson). Fifteen
years in prison would be enough to give them a pretty strong grudge.
The FBI agent that deleted Gibson's file and otherwise helped the bad
guys trail him was being blackmailed by the two ex-cops. The points
Robert lists in the "Spoilers" section of his review at the end... I
didn't understand any of them. Who were the "people the ex-DEA people
were doing deals with" that wanted Gibson dead? I didn't see them; the
primary bad guys were the two bad ex-cops and the FBI agent they were
blackmailing. He made a few other points too; as I said, I didn't
follow his logic or what he was saying. At any rate, I don't think
there were plot holes relating to this aspect of the movie.
Moving back to the first part of the review, on Product
Endorsements: I didn't see these to be big at all. She was driving a
blue BMW, the police had to refer to it as such; they couldn't just be
on the lookout for a "blue convertible luxury car." And the Apple
placement was similar, although a bit more noticeable (Apple emblem on
the side of the machine). I guess my point is: so? It'd be tough to
make a movie without tossing in a few brand names. It wasn't
distracting or anything.
In his "Downer" section, Robert again refers to Gibson as a "Sex
Symbol" and Hawn as a "Giddy Flake." Again, I didn't see this. Gibson
*is* a sex symbol, and again he was running for his life so I think he
was excused in being a Tough Guy (tm). Casting against type is
difficult, and what's wrong with casting *with* type? And, again, I
didn't see Hawn's character as being a giddy flake, or a rich spoiled
mover and shaker. Sure, there were a few obligatory jokes by Hawn along
those lines ("I need food; I need a shower; I need a massage" when lost
in the woods, etc.) but these were nowhere near as frequent or silly as
many movies with similar openings.
And on to the Spoilers section... guess I better stick one of
these things in although I guess I've let a few slip by already...
As to the "left at the altar"/"grieving widow" contradiction, well,
I guess either Hawn was speaking metaphorically in one or the other's
case, most likely the latter. At any rate, a minor nit-pick.
I've covered the bad-guy debate, so: about the flying scene. I
thought it was quite well done, and I'm usually on the lookout for bad
special effects as I hope to make a career in that field (good luck,
huh?). What particular instance does he think he saw a model? I
thought it was quite apparent in most parts that they were indeed using
a real plane/helicopter, and I didn't see any obvious models. And about
the plane/helicopter number prefixes: didn't catch that, and come on...
that is a minor slip. Most people don't know about those things
anyway...
His appraisal of the zoo scene I almost can agree with; it was
pretty contrived and it probably wasn't necessary to have it there.
However, it was well done and had good tension, and was a reasonably
good climax. I've seen a few better and many worse. The two first
oddment he mentioned (tiger chasing Hawn's coat instead of her); well, I
guess maybe you have a point, that was a little daft. But, it worked.
(= As to the second, though (why tigers passed up fresh meat and kept
nipping at Gibson swinging there); don't most wild animals prefer to
hunt their meals? This is why "playing possum" works, in at least some
cases. The tigers were probably simply more interested in the prospect
of "hunting" the still-moving Gibson than preying on the already dead
and quite still Bad Guy. This also goes to suggest that yes, indeed,
these animals were fed previously; a starving tiger will eat whatever,
whether or not it killed it personally. And wasn't the Bad Guy still
lying on the electric fence? The tigers had certainly learned long
before to avoid that sucker.
Finally, he says, the movie seems to be intended for television:
virtually no profanity and surprisingly little violence. Well, I for
one found it pretty refreshing to hear something other than four-letter
words every verse end. As to little violence: there was a considerable
amount, I thought, granted not terribly graphic, but nonetheless
violence; I suppose "surprisingly" is a relative term, though. It
worked for me.
Overall, then, I almost fully disagree with Robert Dorsett's review
of this movie. I thought it was a thoroughly entertaining, well-laid
movie with plenty of action and humor and enough romance to pass muster.
I don't think there were any real holes in the plot, and there was
enough depth to the plot to make it interesting to the thinking mind,
too. I'd give it a solid 8 out of 10 (3 1/4 stars). If you like action
movies with comedy, it's definitely worth a see. Enjoy!
--
-- Ceej (=
ceej@pawl.rpi.edu
gmry@mts.rpi.edu
aka Chris Hillerysandyg@tekirl.LABS.TEK.COM (Sandy Grossmann) (05/26/90)
BIRD ON A WIRE
[Spoilers]
A film review by Sandy Grossman
Copyright 1990 Sandy Grossman
Reviews of this movie seem to fall into two camps: either the movie
is depicted as a See-Mel-Run-and-Hear-Goldie-Scream film ("Summer Camp
for the Stars"), or the movie is seen as a nice little action comedy
that only reviewers can't appreciate.
Okay, so which is it? Uhm, well, uhm......
You know by now that Mel plays Rick and Goldie plays Marianne.
Rick is part of the Federal Witness Protection Program. He testified
against some bad guys and has been looking over his shoulder ever since.
Marianne is his former sort-of-fiance, who was told that Rick died in a
plane crash (part of his cover). She has long since given Rick up for
dead, but still carries a picture of him.
At the start of our story, Marianne is headed for Detroit, where
Our Hero Mel (oops--Rick) is a service station attendant. So far, so
good. Heck, I'm willing to accept that a person who looks like Gibson
(oops, Rick) and has an IQ over 45 and has a college education would be
a grease monkey at some little station in Detroit, no problem. Like,
maybe he's not ambitious. No problem. And I'm perfectly willing to
accept the chance meeting that brings Marianne to Rick's door. I mean,
life is funny, right? So the basic idea that this story is built on is
okay with me. At least up to there.
Now, I don't want to wear an asbestos suit because I don't want to
inhale any of those nasty asbestos fibers, so I won't give away too much
of the story. Besides, I doubt I could if my life depended on it.
Because, you see, no matter how willing you might be at the start of the
movie, by the time the movie starts cooking, you have to be very
forgiving of the, uhm, plot. And you have to develop a tolerance for
Goldie's little screams and big screams, little whines and big whines.
And you have to forgive Goldie for playing such a snivelling fool in
every movie she's made for the last ten years. As for Mel, well, he
does fine, really, but let's just put it this way: This ain't no Hamlet
role.
This is a chase movie. There's a period there, folks. If you like
chase movies, see this one, because it's snappy and has pretty people to
look at and smile at. Lisa somebody-or-other from Entertainment Tonight
asked Mel to describe this movie. He said, and I'm quoting him, "It's
somewhere to go and sit in the dark and choke on your popcorn." He's
got that exactly right. It's not great art and it doesn't try to be.
Even so, I can't help but be disappointed. There's nothing new in
this film and no real chemistry between the players. There's no TIME
for chemistry--it's one chase after another after another.... Would a
little bit of character development really have gotten in the way? In a
related vein, could Marianne have had a bit of gumption and solved
problems on her own instead of playing helpless? And my biggest gripe
with this picture:
WARNING: SPOILERS ON THEIR WAY!!!!!
It's supposed to be a fairly light-hearted romantic comedy with
suspense thrown in. What's light-hearted about shooting the romantic
lead in the abdomen and the shoulder? What did they think this was,
LETHAL WEAPON III? I guess the director and the screenwriter just
couldn't resist: "After all, Gibson is so good at playing hurt; he's got
the sexiest grimace in town. Let's just shoot him a couple of times,
make him bleed all over the place, and then make him okay at the end,
whaddya think?"
I think they coulda done better. If I play compare-this-movie,
BIRD ON A WIRE doesn't fare well. If I just look at the movie as a
separate entity, it's a disappointment. Eh. I'd rather go to a movie
that offers something more than a place to sit and choke on my popcorn.
But Gibson does look cute with a ponytail....
Sandy Grossmann sandyg@tekirl.labs.tek.com
Xref: cbnewsj rec.arts.movies:22078 rec.arts.tv:16510icsu6000@caesar.cs.montana.edu (Jaye Mathisen) (05/27/90)
BIRD ON A WIRE
[Probable Spoilers]
Reviewer: Jaye Mathisen
Copyright 1990 Jaye Mathisen
Summary:
A person in the witness protection program, runs
into some baddies and the girl he almost married.
Crashes, guns, and a few laughs round out the
score.
Mel Gibson is Richard Jarmine, a guy who testified against a couple
of corrupt DEA agents, and was rewarded by being placed in the Federal
Witness Protection program. Goldie Hawn plays a lawyer (Marianne
Graves) who runs into Richard at a Gas Station. The last time she's
seen him is 15 years ago when he left her at the altar. In fact, when
she gets gas at a station that he's working at,she's not sure it's him.
Prior to all the above events, a bad dude (David Carradine) --
one of the DEA people that Rick sent to prison -- has just been
released, and needs to wipe Rick out both on general principles, and
because Rick hasn't testified against the bad dude's partner, another
bad dude.
These bad dudes hunt Rick down, and attempt to kill him. In the
meantime, Marianne has gone back to the place where Rick works to see if
it really is him, and notices the bad dudes attempting to turn Rick into
dog food. Some excitement later, Rick and Marianne are now together,
and Rick needs Marianne to help him find his contact at the FBI to
relocate him, but that person appears to have retired, and the FBI
doesn't have any record of Rick now. (This is because another bad FBI
dude has wiped out Ricks records for reasons that never were explained).
The rest of the movie is guns, babes (Rachel Varney -- played by
some playmate), motorcycles, hairdressers, bad dudes, and wild animals.
Rick and Marianne constantly leap from the frying pan and into the fire.
The final fire is at a zoo where Rick used to work, and he uses his
rapport with animals and a lot of luck to smoke all the bad dudes.
The number of chases/crashes/exciting events is quite long, and fun
to watch. However, after LETHAL WEAPON 1 & 2, it's very difficult to
watch Mel not being a kick-butt kind of guy. I suppose it was an
attempt to show that clever is better than brawn, but I think the latter
is more fun to watch.
In the end, Rick and Marianne emerge victorious and in love, and
live happily ever after....
Rating:
If I was going to be picky, BIRD ON A WIRE doesn't have a lot going
for it. The plot doesn't really develop (why was the FBI guy that wiped
out Ricks file involved with the other bad dudes), and I'm not sure why
they bothered to mention that Marianne is a lawyer. I don't recall
hearing her spout any legalese, unless the point was to show that she's
rich. There were other gripes, and holes, but it certainly wasn't the
worst. So it rates 2 stars (**,average) on the 1 to 4 star scale.
Enjoyability Rating:
Disregarding the above, the film is pretty good. I enjoyed it very
much, Mel's a stud, Goldie's a babe, and there was enough
action/comedy/adventure that even if you noticed the holes in the plot,
you were too caught up in what was going on to pay much attention. Make
no mistake, the film hauls butt. I'd recommend it to my friends, and
maybe even see it again, so it gets a 3 stars out of 4 for enjoyment.
--
Jaye Mathisen,systems manager Internet: icsu6000@caesar.cs.montana.edu
410 Roberts Hall BITNET: icsu6000@mtsunix1.bitnet
Dept. of Computer Science
Montana State University PHONE: (406) 994-{4780,3931}
Bozeman MT 59717