FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Bergorks If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

Bea Swanson This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Rodrigo Amaro It's so bad that even the Razzie's couldn't award this as being the worst movie of that year. It's too painful that John Belushi fans or even fans from the people involved with this garbage have to go through hell torturing themselves just to see how low this can get. But as common knowledge (and Coldplay!) says: if you never try you'll never know. Well, I went for it and hated it. Really hated it. Now I know! It was depressive, sad, messy, sickening to watch this, one of the most unglorifying portrayals ever presented of an artist. Fine, we know Belushi wasn't so much of a good person and who is anyway but to point fingers for most of the film saying "You were nothing but a drug addict who lived most of your days as if they were endless Saturday nights, party all the time and few responsibilities" is a low act. He was there for us in several classics such as "The Blues Brothers", "Animal House" and a few others, and also as being a great comedian with his famous appearances in SNL; and to reduce the man as being a loud cokehead is shameless and atrocious.Not just the portrayal that bothers, the way this was written and presented is terrible as well. I refuse to say the writer of this wrote a screenplay, he made something else but not a screenplay. He took Bob Woodward's biographical work, used very little of facts and invented countless devices in order to make this appealing or as the next "Citizen Kane" due to its several flashbacks and the point of view of a journalist - represented by Woodward as a character (played by J.T. Walsh) investigating the final moments of the actor, interviewing people who knew him. It gets truly ridiculous when Woodward is taken to the very fatidic day of Belushi's death. But until that moment comes, we were already introduced to a taxi driver who is an angel of death who not only takes Belushi (played by Michael Chiklis, way before of The Shield fame) to the afterlife passing back through moments of his life and work but also he has the "power" of delivering the man to hell (a possible homage to "The Seventh Seal" but instead of a chess game it's a pinball game who'll might save John's life). Where does one came up with those ideas? The only praise I give to this involves the presentation of a film director based on John Landis. Since they couldn't use his name due to a possible lawsuit, they picked an actor who resembled him (but not that much) possibly filming "The Blues Brothers" and there's a hint of whom he might be because of a background noise of helicopters flying around (referencing the future tragedy of "The Twilight Zone: The Movie" happened in Landis segment).There's nothing special about "Wired". Nothing. There's just too many things in it, and none of them are serviceable enough to make us interested enough. Biographical pieces tend to present good and bad moments of a person analyzed; "Wired" doesn't do that, just focus on the negative and destructive side of Belushi. And when the movie seems to be presenting his trajectory whether performing his Blues Brothers gigs or shooting a movie or the SNL skits, they're never energic, funny, careful. Worst of all: it doesn't look happy and one can say that most of those memorable moments were some of his happiest, joyful and important things in his life. Drama is cheesy and ridiculous, the comedy numbers don't provide laughs of any kind; the musical performances work sometimes. Everything goes without enthusiasm. What's left to be said about "Wired"? The acting. Chiklis almost impressed me from time to time in playing Belushi (the first scene was one of those parts) but in the end it's just another case of an actor impersonating another actor, it goes on and off and it's disappointing. But one cannot deny some talent from his part, he can hold a movie along as the lead. I really felt bad watching one of my favorite character actors involved in this and worst he's not doing well his part. The Woodward played by Walsh doesn't sound or behave like a reporter, he seems quite naive about Hollywood and famous, making dumb questions that even viewers know the answers, he isn't intrusive as he could be and like most reporters are. The rest of the cast (Alex Rocco, Dakin Mathews, Patti D'Arbanville, Tom Bower and others) all seem to be embarrassed in their supportive roles. Best thing of the show is the guy who plays the angel, although he's a bit annoying, you can find some humor in him.All the curiosity in the world doesn't worth wasting one hour in this, clearly one of the worst biopics ever made. 1/10

bkboiler I saw this in high school with some friends. Having seen many of the 70's Saturday Night skits in reruns, and read the book earlier, I knew what to expect. The lead actor did a better job than the critics at the time said, and the other actors as well. The bottom line though, is that the movie is anything but funny overall, unlike John's work, so not necessarily something fans of his might enjoy. An earlier commenter here suggested a film more like like Man in the Moon would have been a better way to draw the person in to John's comedic vision, instead of only the almost surreal, drug-centered view. Most important for me to state here, is that I think since it was based on a best-selling book, which was about the tragedy of John's drug problem, the story was just a downer. The book left me wondering how Bob Woodward (who along with Carl Bernstein exposed President Nixon's Watergate cover-up) could have bashed the people of Saturday Night so harshly, almost as though he felt there was nothing but dark tales to give his readers. I think in retrospect, it shows that a person who paints a picture people want/feel compelled or drawn to see can be as slanted as he/she likes as long as they push the right buttons. Or... who cares as long as it sells. Ironically, this movie was bashed by probably many of the same newspapers and media outlets who said great things about the book. For different reasons of course, ie. bad acting, bad script, but I urge anyone who sees the book at the library etc. to flip through the book and judge for yourself what this well praised piece of work does to the characters of everyone on the Saturday Night cast, as well as Carrie Fisher, it really could have been written by Albert Goldman (the guy who trashed John Lennon after his death in really bizarre ways). Bob Woodward might have gotten some criticism over this unkind portrayal, but I don't remember hearing any of it from the well-known media critics and newspapers. So whatever, I give the movie 5 out of ten, for its content, acting and message, and I give the book 0 out of ten for ruining the image I had of all my childhood heroes. I don't hate drugs, but they were all shown to be like weirdos, sexual deviants etc. I mean, if you want character assassination, it's like doing a book or film on a president and showing them getting a blow job, or snorting coke or something, rather than what people praised or already largely know. The purpose is to change people's view of that person, which this film and book were meant to do. Both film and book were an ugly expose, much like the old shows, Geraldo, A Current Affair, and all their offspring (you know who you are). I mean, I know he had a drug problem, but it was a f*ckin' tragedy, a huge loss to North American culture, and the guy dissected his life like it was an autopsy, nothing else, like he was doing a report to someone only concerned with alleviating someone else's guilt. Like, how could such a comedic talent die in such a strange way? So they get the authority on expose, Woodward (where was Bernstein?) to find out What_Went_Wrong. Maybe the film wasn't off base then, for having this whole surreal morgue Naked Lunch-style theme to it in parts. I think people should try and do an expose on Woodward. I saw him last year on Larry King, and he looks like a wrinkled fish, (nothing like redford who played him in All The President's Men). Who is this guy anyway? A Reptoid? CIA? Freakish Gaylord? Perhaps we'll never know...

bluesbro72 I am a huge Belushi fan and yes I would have liked to seen a more straight forward bio-pic. However, Belushi was not a straight forward guy he was a wild-man and this movie suits his comedic style. You never knew what you were going to get from John and this movie does a good job of capturing that late 70's early 80's craziness. Michael Chilklis is wonderful as Belushi, sometimes I even forgot that someone was playing John, he captured his Walk, Talk, Craziness, and Sincerety very well. The movie like John's life makes a huge anti-drug message. If anything John's life did change the way Hollywood dealt with addiction and aside from his comedic genius this is something I believe he will be remembered for.

budbe 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.