Spikeopath Rick Jarmin is in the witness protection programme. When an old flame of his recognises him at his gas station work place, he is naturally concerned for his safety, and well he should be because the men he informed on, Albert Diggs and Eugene Sorenson, are hot on his tail. This sets up a sequence of events that lead to Rick and his former lover, Marianne Graves going on the run, with hilarious results.Tho released in 1990, Bird On A Wire positively oozes an 80s feel, from Mel Gibson's (Jarmin) hair to the way director John Badham films his action sequences, it feels 80s and really it probably should have been kept back there. For although this is not a bad film by any stretch of the imagination, in fact Gibson and Goldie Hawn (Graves) are a delightful duo, it just feels repetitive and never really gets to anywhere you wasn't expecting. That is mainly because the 80s (and early 90s) were full of these type of thrillers relying on guffaw set pieces to bring home the bacon, chances are that if you watched another five of these genre films from the same time frame you will be getting deja vu.Some laughs to be had here for sure, and there is nothing wrong with the bad guy portrayals on show, courtesy of Bill Duke and David Carradine, it's just now tired and showing its unimaginative age. 5/10

david-sarkies I remember that this movie hit the cinemas when I was about 17 so it is about ten years old. I never saw it though I remember that a couple of so called friends got me to lend me money to see it though I ended up not going with them. This is why this movie sticks in my mind. It wasn't really something that I wanted to see and now that I have watched it, I don't really think that it is really that much of a movie. When it was in the cinemas, the Greater Union cinema on Hindley Street was in two buildings, one on each side of the street. One must think that this movie isn't all that good because I am talking about the layout of Adelaide at the time that it was in the cinemas. The movie was average, it is just this is what the movie brings back to me.Goldie Hawn is an interesting actor, interesting that I don't actually think that she really suits many of the roles that she is cast it. Hawn is simply just too innocent. She seems to be a lot like my friend Mellissa, she is sweet looking and not really suitable for a woman who has been through divorces and bad husbands. If only she could act and even look more cynical and disillusioned she might suit the roles that she is cast in (okay I am talking about Foul Play and this movie). The role is not all that bad because the character is supposed to be sweet and innocent, dragged into the action that is beyond her, but her background just doesn't reflect the character. I would have had Hawn's character still sweet and innocent, and still mourning for the lover that she lost so long ago. Maybe she could be married but a divorce is just too messy and too emotionally destructive to create a sweet and innocent character.Bird on a Wire, that title just didn't really make much sense to me. That is probably why I thought the movie was simply average. Sure there were stunts, machine guns, explosions, but the title simply did not capture the essence of the movie. It was also a chase movie, where a couple are chased across America by evil government officials, which is reasonably clichéd. I think to make a good movie now we need to fall into the area in which our music is drifting: we need to turn away from the happy fantasy to the hopeless, empty, and bleak existence that life is. Homer Simpson says to the Smashing Pumpkins, "I thank you for your bleak music for you have stopped my children dreaming of a future I simply cannot provide." Our music is tearing down the fantasy world that we have put up before us, and I feel that this is where our movies need to go.Well, I have talked about this, and we must remember the time of the movie. Bird on a Wire was late eighties and the bleak world view was only just forming. Nirvana had appeared in the early nineties, about two to three years after this. Metallica had released And Justice For All, and Iron Maiden were singing Ballards while Guns and Roses were hard rock. This was a time that the world was beginning to collapse but the dream that was the eighties was still flowing. I was employed as an electronic technician and things were nice. It was a time when movies of hope and innocence existed, yet they still do, though I must see Armageddon to really see how movies of hope exist, while movies like City of Angels seem to suggest having to give something up to love.I still haven't talked about what Bird on a Wire entails, but I guess it is not really all that important. Simply it is a chase movie. A young man, Rick, flew over to Mexico to buy some cheap drugs but was caught by corrupt DEA officials who forced him to smuggle drugs back into the States only to get caught at a private airstrip. He testified and was put on witness protection but the DEA officer was recently released and is now after him. At the same time his ex-girlfriend, the one he left standing at the altar, sees him in Detroit and this thrusts them together. It is interesting but rather plain. I had more fun sorting out my photos.

Michael Neumann Summer crowd-pleasers rarely aspire to anything more than big box office returns, but this feather-brained comedy adventure is appallingly unfunny even by its own bubblegum standards. It's less a film than a two hour package of ads for, among other products: Coca Cola, Evian mineral water, Pennzoil, the Four Seasons hotel chain, the almighty MasterCard and, of course, Mel Gibson's bare bottom, a source of awestruck admiration in at least two scenes and also the subject of one hairy close-up. It could have been worse: when the film isn't glorifying his butt it's praising another, presumably well endowed, feature of his anatomy. Never mind the sad excuse for a story; salespersons Gibson and Hawn are merely paid to meander through a series of routine chases, witless dialogue exchanges, and predictable romantic interludes, unburdened by any semblance of character, and with no chemistry between them in any case. The film is condescending (if not downright insulting) to Orientals, homosexuals, wild animals, women, the homeless, and of course anyone gullible enough to waste money seeing it.

ccthemovieman-1 This was "cute" and "funny" the first time I saw it, but "annoying" on the second look. A big part of that was my pet peeve of hearing God's name used an exclamation all the time and Goldie Hawn was absolutely brutal in that regard. Every time she was in trouble, which was often, it was "Oh, God!, Oh, God!, Oh, God!"Puh-leeze, stop with the bimbo blasphemy. I am so sick of people doing this, especially women who are the worst abusers and especially dumb blondes. Anyway, the profanity in addition to the above-mentioned, made this film deserve an "R" rating, not "PG-13." How many movies have we seen where that is the case? Parents, beware of films labeled "PG-13."If none of this stuff bothers you in the least and you like a fun comedy-adventure then I heartily recommend the movie. You'll get a lot of laughs and entertainment out of this. Hawn and Mel Gibson are always in some kind of trouble and they are a likable couple to watch. This movie personifies both actors: Mel, the handsome macho guy with the sense of humor and Goldie the cutie who is smarter than she looks.... and not as innocent, either. She really likes to show off her butt in this film. It's nice, but the fanny jokes are overdone here.The bad guys in the movie? The DEA, who else? That's Hollywood's most hated group, I think, even more than the military. Anyone who might takes drugs away from them is a definite enemy of movie producers, directors and actors!In this weak-plotted film, our two "buddies" are chased all over the country and we viewers just go along for the bumpy and crazy ride.