Wired (1989)

First, I saw this many years ago on late night TV. Even if I wanted to see it on theaters I could've not, since I remember that there was a "controversy" of sort generated by "bromantic" companion Ayrkoyd, (real) brother James, and the rest of the SNL camp. They used their Hollywood clout to boycott the film, virtually blocking the release and stalling the careers of everybody involved. At the very least, they (alongside the lib media) badmouthed the movie on every available chance. And second, this is not a very good movie, overall. It's not that enjoyable; nor on a technical viewpoint, particularly well made. It's low budget, and it looks like the exploitative TV movie of the week. Being in that inferior medium notwithstanding; it comes as merely mediocre, at best. I guess Oliver Stone wasn't available at the time (because of The Doors film) As a matter of fact and in retrospect, I'd have found a movie about the moronic, narrow minded, self righteous indignation of said movie-making "elite" more interesting than this. Someone should make a docudrama about it; I mean, really!So why did I gave it such a high rating? Also for two primary reasons. First and foremost, because the first prev mentioned explanatory reason. The filmmakers tried something new and bold, and it just didn't pan out that well. I'll still grant them extra credits for the attempt itself. Bias can be a good compensatory measure; and I decided to used a lot of it in here. As there clearly has been done a grave injustice. I mean; in what kind of sick, demented world is it OK trying to destroy good people that merely wanted to make a living at entertainment?! And the second reason, solely because Michael Chiklis performance; he's a very good actor and should've received a lot of awards. Or at least, a bunch of raving critics' reviews. He really captured how awful and lame John really was. He should've made it much earlier that he did; that's for sure. And that's just about the only salvageable quality on the movie itself. Because the plot is senseless and uncreative, script's unintentionally laughable, direction's weak and unfocused, and let's face it: John Belushi wasn't that interesting of a char to made an IRL movie about him in the first place. He was an unbearable, unfunny, unoriginal, talentless, two-bit, long forgotten, bad performer. Overrated and heralded like the greatest thing since the invention of french toast; by lo&behold, crazed fans and the very same people referenced in the first paragraph! &BTW, he was also an unlikeable SOB; drug abusing, or not...He was a public figure; the producers didn't need anyone's permission, except for copyright reasons of course. His "creativity" came from the drugs; without them, he'd as average as the guy sitting next to you at the office. So he'd never have amounted to something significant, even if still alive today. I can count with one hand the people with real talent that came out of there that actually made it, and maintained it constantly (Bill Murray, Steve Martin & Mike Myers) And ironically the drug abuse and self-brought decadent downward spiral were the most interesting parts about the movie. That is if there were more than very little about them. Because after you see the film, you'll realize too that the issues generated by the "woman" of the relationship (&family) are virtually nonexistent. Everything that they said was an exaggerated lie. This movie it's not evil. It doesn't demonized him; it doesn't even portrayed him a such bad light, in the slightest. If any, it's the other way around. It's factual and truthful enough; given some material was indeed made up for dramatic effect, but that's always unavoidable. So they were the hypocritical ones throwing dirt at John's memory every time they uttered their mouth; albeit mostly indirectly; since why then try so hard to state the opposite..? Obv a movie is better than none, even a "bad" one. They just should've kept their mouths shut, or at least wait for it to actually come out, IMHO; but they're obv not very smart either. Even if there were issues, or "dark secrets", or whatever; *roll-eyes* (nowadays it's OK to be a lil'gay Dan); what would make and bring more honor to John's miserable and pathetic existence..? What's more important; keeping a false fantasy or telling what it is, ie the truth. The memory of John Belushi is almost as relevant as that of any other person that has passed away under the same circumstances. The only diff here is that he had some powerful "friends" to twist the history of what happened...NB: The movie and the negative, tantrumish campaign sure have endured the test of time though. Because a lot of time has passed and I (and a lot of people here on IMDb) certainly haven't forgot about it. &BTW, the new Emile Hirsch ver news made me remember more vividly the whole affair. I hope they made a better effort, although obv is not really required; as in the bitter end there's already a def movie (this one), and John's life is as consequential as what he was; horse manure. If that was his best while being high; then I don't want to see (let alone known) him clear, at all! The sketches were supposed to be really awful; just like the original material. And if his "friends" really cared; he would still be around today. They didn't really care; as long as he was quasi-functional. Talk is cheap; "Just say no", or whatever. They obv cared more about themselves, their careers, and their images, etc; at least by their self-centered covering up actions. Even though he bought onto himself his own obsessive, self destructive demise. So if telling it like it is it's a sin, then there wouldn't and shouldn't be a movie about him; it'd an one-sided idolatric borefest otherwise, for sure...

and I have seen a lot of films. I saw this in the theatre in 1989 and to this day I remember the sickening urge to walk out. If you like John Belushi, respect his talent, or even the sanctity of the cinema-- this film has nothing to offer you. It is mostly a pathetic showcase for the writer of Belushi's biography, Bob Woodward. As we see the progression of Belushi's life pass on the screen, Woodward actually shows up in the film like a ghost character. The most offensive scene occurs when Belushi is dying, looks up from his deathbed to see the author standing above him and he weakly utters "Breathe for me, Woodward." There are too many terrible things to mention them all, the least of which is the opening that has Belushi jumping out of his body bag in the morgue and getting into a taxi driven by a guy named "Angel." I'll leave it at that.

Here is a movie that is utterly without redeeming qualities.I was a Belushi fan, but I never shared the opinion that Woodward's book was a hatchet job...on the contrary, I though it was a pretty good piece of journalism.This movie, however, is not at all faithful to the book. There is a bunch of "ghost of Christmas past" kind of stuff with the ghost of Belushi riding through his past with a Latino cab driver who identifies himself as Belushi's 'guardian angel'...where did this come from?It's certainly not in the book.Everyone involved seems embarrassed to be part of this mess, and so they should!On a scale of 1 to 10 I give "Wired" a MINUS 20...utter and complete garbage...the final insult to a great performer.

This could have been a good biopic, but what a mess! I had this film when I was a theater manager. When I put the film together, and watched it, I thought I had some reels out of order. As it turned out I didn't, and if I did, nobody would have noticed. I couldn't figure out what's going on! Everybody who walked out pretty much felt the same way!