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

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

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.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.