Especially in the age of the Internet, it can sometimes be hard as a viewer to give movies a fair shake. Sometimes the first or even only thing we might hear about a title is that it's very bad. If we're not dissuaded altogether from watching, then no matter how open-minded we may try to be that kernel of information will still be sitting with us if we take a chance. Nonetheless, as with all cinematic infamy - 'Showgirls,' 'Ishtar,' 'Cats,' and so on - there comes a point where reading about something just isn't enough, and we have to see it for ourselves. Though I've no familiarity with the play I'm aware that Ray Cooney's stage work has enjoyed considerable success over the years; on the other hand, I'm also aware that his film adaptation, co-directed with John Luton, has been the source of considerable derision from the moment it was released. But just how bad could it be? As soon as we press "play" we discover that the answer is "astoundingly." 'Run for your wife' is a chore from the moment it begins, and the only surprise is that it's not regarded even more poorly.
There is no line that is funny, even if some come close. There is no scene, characterization, or performance that is funny, no matter how desperately over the top Cooney or his actors try to make them - and I do mean "desperate," as in "they were leaning heavily on the pizazz in the vain hope that it would be a suitable substitute for wit or actual humor." These same words can be applied to many other aspects, including and not necessarily limited to music and sound cues, the overproduced image quality that accentuates the contrivance, the bright and pronounced colors in the sets, filming locations, costume design, and lighting that are amplified by that image quality, and every gag, quip, or trace of physical comedy or situational humor. This feature looks like, sounds like, and is just about as funny as the average Asylum production, with a rank veneer of falsehood that dampens all the fun we should theoretically be having. Even Walter Mair's music is stunningly milquetoast, like something a local business would commission for an ad parodying a well known movie.
I don't know what happened here. What's flummoxing is that I've seen one of Cooney's other directed features, 1973's 'Not now, darling,' and absolutely loved it; it was riotously funny all the way through. The man clearly is not an amateur nobody, and I do recognize scattered ideas here that could and should have earned a laugh. What was it about 'Run for your wife' that it found such success on the stage, but immediately floundered when Cooney tried to adapt it as a motion picture? Is it that he couldn't capture the right energy? Is Cooney's direction too flat? Is there too weak a sense of dynamics? Are the dynamics too severe? Are the jokes too juvenile, is the comedic timing off, does the farce of the theater not comport with the farce of cinema? Has the comedy of the 80s not aged well, or did Cooney overcompensate in updating his 80s play to the 2010s? In the very least the former is definitely true where the gay community is the butt of an ill-considered joke, which is the case with increasing frequency as the length advances. Amazingly, 'Run for your wife' somehow manages to get even worse in the last third when the would-be "comedy" furthermore resorts to transphobia to reach in futility for cheap, puerile giggles.
I'm not even sure what some bits were supposed to represent, or how we got from A to B in some cases, or how they were supposed to be funny; the writing is a jumbled mess. I don't have the answers here; all I know is that I never laughed once in ninety minutes, and the strongest reaction that the flick evoked was a smile. Or, to be fair, it was a handful of smiles - but no more than five total by my count, and at least one of those felt like a forced prize offered in consolation for how frantic all involved seemed to be to gain some infinitesimal sliver of favor. Rarely has one and one-half hours felt so excruciatingly long; the digital timer inched forward with agonizing slothfulness. With all this firmly in mind, the large number of "blink and you miss them" celebrity cameos feels like an urgent last ditch effort by Cooney, Luton, and producers Graham Fowler and James Simpson to distract audiences from how unbelievably, atrociously hollow, vapid, insipid, and unfunny the whole affair is. I don't know whether to feel embarrassed for those who contributed in some manner, or to condemn them.
A small part of me wants to say this doesn't completely hit rock bottom. Though the ends to which they were guided are abysmal, the cast endeavored mightily; likewise, the turned in good work, even if it was twisted to terrible ends. Yet the fact remains that even through to a post-credits scene, this abomination only ever manages to get worse, and go from tiresome to exhausting to actively aggravating. I'm sure there is someone out there who does think it's entertaining, but I don't know who they are, and I don't think I want to know them, either. I anticipated that 'Run for your wife' would be awful, and still I'm confounded by just how egregiously stale and meaningless it is, and in some instances downright offensive. Frankly, I'm simply aghast. For all the movies that have ever been described as being one of "the worst ever made," those that truly deserve the label are often ones that a negligible number of people have ever seen - 'A karate Christmas miracle,' for example, or 'Birdemic.' Well, mark this 2012 title as an example of a major release that can count among that notorious company, because when all is said and done, this is pretty much just appalling.
