Skip to main content

It can turn any domestic computer into a killing machine.


(SPOILERS) About the biggest takeaway from Runaway: so that’s where Spielberg got his robot spiders for Minority Report. In a very crude, clunky, 1980s Mechano set kind of way. Likewise, the bullet POV tracking shots may have got the drop on – what, Sniper? – by eight years, but they’re nevertheless the premiere, crude, clunky 1980s STV version. Crichton’s early successes (Westworld, Coma), benefited from a spartan – shall we say, generously – directorial approach, emboldened as they were by strong core concepts. But he was on less solid ground as the ’80s arrived, with considerably more talented visual technicians outmatching him at every turn. Which explains why Runaway resembles TV movie fare for much of its duration, complete with a TV star and a “special guest star” of the week in the form of an ailing rock legend. Runaway seemed pedestrian, undernourished and low on thrills in 1984, and time hasn’t come round to its side.

It was the director’s fifth of six movies (the last being Physical Evidence, where he didn’t originate the source material), and the fourth science-fiction one. There’d be a resurgence in his reputation in the following decade, mostly in bankable terms, off the back of Jurassic Park. And then subsequent novel adaptations and screenplays that proved successful despite being less intriguing in premise than either Looker or Runaway. The difference was that they brought with them star directors and star wattage, and luxuriant budgets (see Rising Sun, Disclosure, Congo, and Twister; and bringing up the rear, The 13th Warrior and Sphere). Crichton could afford Tom Selleck (previously seen in Coma, briefly) and Cynthia Rhodes’ perm (no dancing this time). Kirstie Alley also appears, failing to capitalise on her Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan breakthrough until about ’87. It’s also the debut of Joey Cramer, later the lead in queasily symbols-strewn Flight of the Navigator.

Crichton called Runawayabout a year ahead” in terms of worldview (it appears to be set in 1991, based on visual evidence), and less a cautionary tale than “an updated police story with every police cliché turned a bit”. He didn’t suddenly lose touch in terms of coming up with a concept, in other words, just in the skill set of delivering it. The idea is of rogue machinery resulting from our increasing reliance on automation (household robots doing the cooking, cleaning the house and operating surveillance; retinal ID) but nothing “… super-intelligent. They’re machines. They’re not perfect. Being primitive, they’re sort of stupid and they make mistakes…

We see this early on, with a “runaway” robot in a corn field, but the picture quickly switches to intentional mechanical aberrations, as Simmons’ Dr Charles Luther unleashes various items of tech causing robot homicides (he has developed a program enabling machines to differentiate between humans via unique heat signatures); he has the savvy to “turn any domestic computer into a killing machine”.

He’s also played by Gene Simmons, his feature debut and displaying a maximum side of rotisseried ham, so those acting lessons paid off, depending on how you look at it (“Listen, sucker!”) Luther foresees a goldmine of opportunities in his technology, of selling the chips to the mafia, terrorist cells and foreign agents. Which might make a good movie, but it ain’t this one.

Instead, we’re treated to a beleaguered Sergeant Ramsay (Selleck, and cursed with crippling Vertigo-esque vertigo) tracking down Luther but requiring very few detective skills to do so. “He said he’d kill me just the way he killed all the others” Alley informs him, serving the function of helpful exposition before expiring. She certainly makes Ramsay sit up: “She’s very attractive” he intones, no doubt all eyes for her shoulder pads, rather than partner Karen’s limber legs; female officers in 1991 wear regulation skirts, what with their being very practical on the job.

Regarding that business of tracking Luther down, Crichton throws in a genuinely blindsiding curiosity with the police psychic scene. I wondered for a second if the movie might go down an interesting detour, but it wasn’t to be. “You were brothers in another lifetime” Ramsay is informed; “You’ll definitely meet. He’ll see to that… You have what he wants”. Miss Shields (Elizabeth Norment) is right on all counts, but alas, this is not her investigation.

Inevitably, proceedings culminate atop a high building, where Tom suffers rather bruised and smouldering cheeks via laser-spitting spider robots. Such smarting doesn’t prevent him locking lips with Karen, though, presumably because he’s quite a guy. It’s enough to make you long for Demon Seed’s Proteus IV to show up and take command of all household gadgets, terminally, everywhere, but alas, it’s not to be. Clearly, it was Tom removing that unexploded microshell from Karen’s arm that kindled the most powerful magnetic attraction between them.

Ramsay has a terribly funny comedy household robot called Lois (voiced by Marilyn Schreffler, of numerous Hanna Barbara productions), who expires with something approaching pathos, and Crichton admittedly is onto something when he has his characters casually exchanging notes on the model (“My mother had a Series 10” says Karen, of Tom’s Series 12). But the lack of messaging in the movie – aside from “machines make it easier to kill”, stop the press – rather disengages Runaway from prognostication. I don’t think we’re likely to see an HBO version anytime soon. This is closer to Glen Larson. The one interrogation of this environment of tomorrow relates to the labour-saving element of automation: “No coffee breaks, no union hassles” (on a construction site where only robots work). But it’s a passing remark, soon forgotten.

Selleck’s an interesting case of a miss at movie stardom. Sometimes, TV stars just don’t take – James Garner – but the reasons are never wholly clear. Would Raiders of the Lost Ark have been such a massive hit had Selleck not been waylaid by his Magnum, P.I. duties? Moustache acting can always be a hurdle (Burt’s would go out of vogue after the ’70s), but Selleck has the kind of smooth, laidback confidence you can readily identify in a Clooney or Costner (it’s debatable how much of a movie star Clooney ever really was, as far as opening pictures goes; NWO forced-jab-demanding gopher, yes. Pulling in the punters, questionable). Of course, Selleck’s face doesn’t fit, as an NRA board member and vocally libertarian in leanings (like fellow gunsmith Kurt Russell). He’s a man’s man, not a Clooney milquetoast. Why, when he uses the F-word here, he apologises for it! Like real men do.

The consequence of Magnum was that Clooney only ever played catch up in his movie roles. Be it the (billed as) sub-Indy of High Road to China, the sub-Blade Runner of Runaway, or the sub-inverted Crocodile Dundee of Quigley Down Under. His solitary hit factory was in the Three Men and a… franchise (ish), in the company of two other signature ’80s actors (albeit Ted Danson escaped the confines, As for Steve Guttenberg… ) But Selleck still has a fan base; most insist he’s a very likeable fellow, possibly even Rosie O’Donnell among them, and he’s held a recurring role in Blue Bloods for a decade. Runaway isn’t much cop, but… scratch what I said, I could see some enterprising, or not so much, producer turning it into a remake sometime soon. Alexa, why are you trying to kill me?

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

The Krishna died of a broken finger? I mean, is that a homicide?

Miami Blues (1990) (SPOILERS) If the ‘90s crime movie formally set out its stall in 1992 with Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs , another movie very quietly got in there first at the beginning of the decade. Miami Blues picked up admiring reviews but went otherwise unnoticed on release, and even now remains under-recognised. The tale of “blithe psychopath” Federick J. Frenger, Jr., the girl whose heart he breaks and the detetive sergeant on his trail, director George Armitage’s adaptation of Charles Willeford’s novel wears a pitch black sense of humour and manages the difficult juggling act of being genuinely touching with it. It’s a little gem of a movie, perfectly formed and concisely told, one that more than deserves to rub shoulders with the better-known entries in its genre. One of the defining characteristics of Willeford’s work, it has been suggested , is that it doesn’t really fit into the crime genre; he comes from an angle of character rather than plot or h

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

You tampered with the universe, my friend.

The Music of Chance (1993) (SPOILERS) You won’t find many adaptations of Paul Auster’s novels. Original screenplays, yes, a couple of which he has directed himself. Terry Gilliam has occasionally mentioned Mr. Vertigo as in development. It was in development in 1995 too, when Philip Haas and Auster intended to bring it to the screen. Which means Auster presumably approved of Haas’ work on The Music of Chance (he also cameos). That would be understandable, as it makes for a fine, ambiguous movie, pregnant with meaning yet offering no unequivocal answers, and one that makes several key departures from the book yet crucially maintains a mesmerising, slow-burn lure.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .