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 Hillery
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews