Runaway (1984).

Review #1171: Runaway.

Cast: 
Tom Selleck (Sgt. Jack R. Ramsay), Cynthia Rhodes (Karen Thompson), Gene Simmons (Dr. Charles Luther), Kirstie Alley (Jackie Rogers), Stan Shaw (Sgt. Marvin James), G.W. Bailey (Chief of Police), Joey Cramer (Bobby Ramsay), and Chris Mulkey (David Johnson) Directed by Michael Crichton (#988 - Westworld)

Review: 
Runaway was the fifth film that Michael Crichton directed and wrote for, and I suppose there must've been a yearning for him to make a sci-fi action thriller film with a look at machines. It certainly invites some comparisons to the technology present over thirty years since its release, that is for sure. There certainly are some things present here that are interesting to look at, such as smart bullets or robot spiders with acid. For a movie with no real terrible performances, how does the end product manage to be just mediocre? I suppose this comes due to the fact that there also isn't too much from what the movie offers that differs from other cop movies besides occasional moments with tech, particularly with its climax in a unfinished building. It manages to have a bunch of the cliches that you might expect from something like this, such as a new partner, greedy bad guy, someone involved in double-crossing the villain, hostage exchanges, etc, having a fair bit of predictability by the time the film moves towards its climax  For a movie that is about cops taking care of wayward machines, I feel that the premise isn't really executed too well, feeling a bit too casual with its approach. Honestly, you probably could've made a comedy with this material, as if the Geek Squad suddenly became cops in the future. Selleck (playing a cop who happens to be a expert on robots) is fine and pleasant, but the material doesn't really give him much to do besides a few stiff moments trying to establish chemistry with Rhodes and occasional moments trying to play off Simmons that begs for something a bit over-the-top. The oddest scene is where he takes down a robot that shocks you without protective gear to help a woman to safety because...he just wants to impress her I suppose, although I don't know how much she'll like him beating the thing with a bat. Rhodes is fine, having a bit of charm on occasion. Simmons (in his first feature role) is somewhat interesting in this slimy role, at least. Perhaps the material needed to give him a bit more to do to make it really have more impact. His fight with Selleck at the end feels a bit lacking, but at least there's a few killer spiders to go around and plenty of heights. Alley is fine, but she isn't really in the film too much to make much of an impact. The film doesn't really have any character that sticks out too greatly, being an okay but not special action flick with occasional moments of robot stuff. In a year with hit films such as Beverly Hills Cop and The Terminator, this movie did not prove to be a hit with audiences, making just over six million at the box office on an eight million budget upon release in late December. On the whole, the movie isn't anything to point and pick at, but it also isn't anything too great to write home about either. It exists on the scale of average, teetering between interesting and forgettable. Would I recommend it? I can't say it won't waste your time too much, but I also can't say that it really will prove to be too beneficial for certain tastes and patience, seemingly fitting only when there aren't too many choices to pick from.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Never Too Young to Die.

Review #1035: Never Too Young to Die.

Cast: 
John Stamos (Lance Stargrove), Vanity (Danja Deering), Gene Simmons (Carruthers / Velvet Von Ragner), George Lazenby (Drew Stargrove), Peter Kwong (Cliff), Ed Brock (Pyramid), John Anderson (Arliss), and Robert Englund (Riley) Directed by Gil Bettman.

Review: 
The best way to describe this movie is to call it a tacky 80s cliché, complete with ridiculous villains and even more ridiculous situations. It's a b-movie through and through, so at least I can say it is consistent in being odd, although that isn't saying much. Is it worth it for me to write many words on why this movie isn't good? No, but I will try to make a meaningful review that expresses some of why this movie is pretty terrible. Stamos (in his film debut) isn't particularly impressive in this lead role, likely because he just doesn't look like the kind of person right for the action adventure comedy that the movie wants to go for, although the acting isn't too wacky. His scenes with Vanity don't go as badly, although I can't say that they are anything too special. Vanity (real name Denise Matthews) does a bit better, although she is best suited for the action sequences (doing a bit better with that than Stamos). Easily, the one who stands out is Simmons, most likely because of how odd this villainous role is. I suppose if you ever wanted to see Dr Frank N. Furter as the villain in a mish-mash of James Bond and action-adventure, this is the one for you (I haven't seen The Rocky Horror Picture Show, but then again that statement isn't exactly a truthful compliment either). The action sequences aren't too bad, although it isn't anything too noteworthy. The climax is ridiculous, but it is entirely unsurprising if you give in to the movie's game that it plays, for better or worse. It is nice to see Englund and Lazenby, even if neither has much to do in the movie. Kwong is in the film briefly as a sort of "Q" figure, although that isn't saying much. There is nothing particularly impressive about anything in this movie, but there also isn't anything too awful about it either. This is ultimately a film that is best watched as something to laugh at, with nothing that is good to highlight but also nothing that is horrifying to note either. It's junk, but it's junk that is digestible for most people. Take this film for what it's worth...pennies or not.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.