DVD Review HTF REVIEW: The Running Man: Special Edition (1 Viewer)

[DannyS]

Great movie, great Soundtrack by Faltermeyer (second to Beverly Hills Cop) and great performance by Arnohlt. (maybe for all the wrong reasons)

 

[Michael Elliott]

I enjoy everything from silents to even recent films but the reason films are so bad today is due to the trash that was released in the 1980's. I often here people complain about how unoriginal and "dumb" movies are today and I think this goes back to the 80's. The 1970's were a groundbreaking decade for film because the studios stepped out of the way and the director's were allowed to make an actual film and money wasn't the top issue. Studios were willing to give a young director a chance in order to make a great movie. They just weren't out casting good looking leads to appeal to the MTV crowd.

The 1970's were a brave time in Hollywood and the films released show that. The documentary Easy Riders, Raging Bulls goes through this period in wonderful detail and could talk about the "change" in Hollywood a lot better than I could here. In the 1970's we got AMERICAN GRAFFITI while in the 80's we got something more watered down and silly like PORKY'S. The 70's gave us "scares" in HALLOWEEN while the next decade gave us "mindless gore" in films like FRIDAY THE 13TH. Even a gory horror film like DAWN OF THE DEAD could give us gore but keep it behind an actual story and a message. In the next decade we got no story and the character developement was just someone standing in line to be butchered. The 70's could be brave in giving us an un-PC film like DIRTY HARRY while we got safer stuff in RAMBO. The 70's gave us films like CARNAL KNOWLEDGE and LAST TANGO IN PARIS while nothing like that wouldn't be chanced in the 1980's.

I certainly didn't mean to start a debate with my comments but that's how I feel about the situation. When I see how bad certain movies are today I always look back at what influenced them in the 1980s. While the 1970's were delivering smart films about real issues, the next decade pretty much went for mindless entertainment and this got worse in the 1990's and even worse today. I enjoy films like F13, LETHAL WEAPON and PORKY'S but to me, this was certainly the start of a downfall, which we're still going through. Each year brave new films try to do something original but these are usually overlooked because they open on 100 screens instead of 4000 like a film like GODZILLA. The 80's certainly delivered some great films but they were often watered down versions of stuff we had seen the previous decade. This stuff made a lot of money and it kept getting remade throughout the 1990's and 2000's and that's where we are today.

 

[Glen C]

congrats.... it is not often "reviewers" take the tact to grossly overgeneralize and insult readers but you have done this well

 

[Devin_C]

So Michael, if you're so predisposed to disliking films from the 80's, why would you voluntarily review DVDs of films from that decade, knowing that it would be quite likely your personal opinion might cloud or obscure the information on the DVD itself?

Granted, a lot of the content in reviews are predominantly personal opinion or summation of plot/story, but if I had a strong distate for musicals, I probably wouldn't be able to write a balanced review of an Evita dvd - or one of Singin' in the Rain for that matter. :rolleyes

 

[Michael Elliott]

Glen---My comments were not meant to insult anyone for what they like or dislike. My comments about the 80's got some debate here and I posted my thoughts on why I felt that way. I was in no way putting people down if they liked this film.

Devin---I'm a major film snob/lover and I've seen thousands of films from each decade. I'm open to any film no matter if it's silent, B&W, mindless or smart. I have no favorites and I don't bring predisposed opinions into something when I watch/review it. I first saw THE RUNNING MAN in theaters then again on VHS then again on HBO and finally on this DVD. Many of my favorite films are from the 1980's (Porky's is an example) but I wouldn't call that great filmmaking. PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE is one of my favorite movies to watch but I would never say it was a "classic" film like CITIZEN KANE. There was a lot of the stuff I disliked about THE RUNNING MAN and while the review was negative, the star rating was still decent. While I enjoyed watching the film, as I said in the review, it's the type of film that I forget about the next day. I did not say this to insult the fans but I was just stating my opinion. If people took offense to this then I do apologize.

Me not liking a movie will in no way shape or form go into judging the V/A/E. I'm guessing you are trying to say that if I hated the movie then I might be less favorable of the added goodies no matter how well they are. Trust me, I take a lot of pressure in doing this because people might be spending their hard earned dollars on my recommendation. Some might not care but this here really bothers me. I certainly don't want to give off the wrong information to where someone might be upset in something they bought based on my review. I didn't care for THE RUNNING MAN but I'll certainly give it an honest review when it comes to the V/A/E. Even if the commentary tracks weren't that interesting to me, I can tell if a fan would enjoy the information by what's being talked about and if they were talking enough to keep the track busy. Even in not liking the movie I can be honest about the V/A quality.

When it comes to reviewing this stuff, it would probably be easier if I just reviewed stuff I enjoyed but often times I find stuff in my hands that I don't enjoy. I know a lot of LORD OF THE RINGS fans thought I shouldn't review that because I wasn't a die-hard fan. I'm still thinking what I should do about the upcoming film. In my opinion, I think fans of the film will buy the movie no matter how much I hate it. I'm sure all the fans of THE RUNNING MAN will buy the movie even if I called it the worst ever made. That's why I started adding the star rating. I'm sure the fans of the film don't care about my opinion on the movie, so they can see the "rating" I gave it and then they can skip onto what they are interested in: the video and audio. So, in my reviews, the "movie" review is for those who might not have seen the movie while the "V/A/E" section is for those who are interested in buying the thing. If I said the V/A were horrible, fans of the film might not buy the disc. If I said the movie was horrible, fans wouldn't care because they enjoy the film.

Again, I didn't mean anything bad in what I said in the review. I was simply stating my own opinions about various things and my opinions certainly aren't meant to be seen as facts. Everyone here could write up a different review/opinion so mine is no better than what anyone else would say. I see every review as an opinion and no one is going to agree 100%. With that in mind, I try to deliver an honest review of what I think about a film and the disc itself. I honestly didn't think the film was great while I did think the DVD was great. With that said, I'm sure fans will love the disc.

 

[Dave H]

Actually, there were a lot of good movies in the 80's the more I think about --- especially in regards to teen movies: John Hughes comedies, Porkys, Revenge of the Nerds, Fast Times at R.H., Risky Business, Weird Science.....some classics here.

Let's also not forget Indy Movies, Star Wars: Empire and Jedi, Die Hard, Superman II and E.T.

I guess you can find some good movies in any decade though.

On any rate, I wasn't that fond of Running Man when I first saw it. But, being an Arnold fan, maybe I'll check it out again.

 

[Gary Seven]

I understand where Michael is coming from, nonetheless, there were some great films that came from that decade, and while this may not be one of them, it certainly is one of the most fun.

One of those fun things was, unfortunately, not mentioned... the performance of Richard Dawson. This movie was an over-the-top satire of many things and one of those was the game shows of the 80s. Ironically, Dawson was at the forefront of those being with Family Feud. His performance here parallels those of the Feud. Funny stuff.

I know nothing of the history in the pre-production of this film so reading that Reeves was the original choice for the producers was a surprise. It is interesting to think what might have been but I enjoyed the satire as it is and as one who has the THX LD, I will be upgrading with this release.

BTW, when is the release date?

 

[Devin_C]

Michael - Thanks for the detailed reply; I agree with you on a number of points; fans of the film won't care a whit about your opinion, and you did provide some decent detail on the technical aspects of the disc.

 

[Steve K.H.]

Argghhh... the global star rating is too subjective because it is encapsulizing (is that a word?) all aspects of the offering.

That said, OTHER than that point, I like the review... a lot. So rather than us all saying "Gee, nice review!", I am offering up an opinion how a review can be bettered, as opposed to where it succeeds.

This is evolution. Anti-Orwellians are resistant to change. Me, I dislike the status quo; there is always a better mousetrap.

Star Ratings - Global versus Categorized

If a film is a PoS but it has the best darn graphics and sound out there, I would like the star rating confirming this. The only way to know this is a star rating by category.

I may or may not be a fan of the film. It may or may not be a good film. A global rating does not tell me if the number reflects the presentation or the film or those little extras.

The key to remember is that "No matter how good the experience of excrement is, it is still a piece of crap." (I paraphrased)

To me, the "extras" are okay, but if the film has 1 star in extras or 4 (or 5) stars in extras, neither has ANY bearing on whether I buy the flick. Offer a PoS with a documentary on how it was made, and I'm not likely to buy it.

Unfortunately, a lousy extras rating will bring down the average of the package that the reviewer posted, on the global rating. As an example:

Film A
(receives 4 out of 5 :star:'s)

Based on Average as Follows:

Movie - 5 :star:'s
Picture - 5 :star:'s
Sound - 5 :star:'s
Extras - 1 :star:

Film B
(receives 4 out of 5 :star:'s) with a subtle change:

Movie - 1 :star:
Picture - 5 :star:'s
Sound - 5 :star:'s
Extras - 5 :star:'s

This should add clarity. How can each achieve a high recommendation to purchase from a reviewer, when one is a critically acclaimed masterpiece and the other one is "From Justin to Kelly"ish?

At the very least, the sound and picture of a release should be completely separate in the rating of software from the movie itself.

That way, we don't cross the lines on personal art preferences (I detest Ghandi but I enjoy Oliver and Predator equally for different reasons).

Whoa... so much for a couple lines of comment.

(btw, there's a lotta crappy movies in every decade, once you broaden your focus...)

 

[PaulP]

I never read the portions of the reviews that talk about the film itself. Most of the time I know it or know what it's about. All I'm interested is the a/v and extras. The rest I can do without. Unfortuantely every reviewer must feel like a critic and offer up a detailed synopsis of the film first. Not to offend any reviewers, but that's a waste of time, for me, and I'm sure many others. The only exception to this would be a review of a Criterion release, since I know the a/v and extras are top-notch - it's the film that I'm often unfamiliar with.

 

[Jeff D Han]

I read some posts about favorite lines from
The Running Man.

My favorite is when Jim Brown's character enters
the playing field with a rocket pack on his back.

Maria Conchita Alonso: "Jesus Christ!"
Arnold: "Guess again."

 

[Michael Elliott]

I think this is a very good point and it's something I've discussed with many other reviewers. Some have said it's a waste of time because with DVD, it's not about the movie but the video, audio and extras. We also went on to talk about how DVD has pretty much killed movie talk due to people being curious about the right AR, the correct sound mix and a good commentary. We bash actors/directors for making a bad film yet we must go on and bash them for making a poor documentary or not talking enough during a commentary.

As I said earlier, those who are going to buy the DVD probably could care less what the reviewer has to say about the film. I could give LORD OF THE RINGS a BOMB rating and I'm 100% certain that the fans will still buy the disc. If I said the DVD featured the worst video quality and cut off 50% of the image then those fans might not get the disc then. So, as you said, the movie review portion would be a waste of time to them but I think the reviewer still needs to talk about the film for those who haven't seen it. In the end, the movie review is for those who haven't seen the film and the DVD review is for the fans of the film. In some cases, I'm sure fans would buy the DVD even if the V/A/E were poor so I guess it's up to that buyer and how he wants to spend his money. For me personally, I enjoy reading reviews by those who haven't seen the movie before.

In the end, I think it boils down to what a person wants to spend their money on. I guess my job is to tell them if a disc is worth that money. Even if I hate the film I try to think about the fans of that film and that's why I'll often say if you're a fan of the film you should be happy with the disc. A good example is here. I didn't care for the film but I certainly think everyone here will be happy with the disc. I didn't care for the film but there's no way I could say the disc was bad.

As I stated in a previous thread, I never used the "highly recommended" or other tags because I never knew if I should recommend a film or a DVD. Meaning, I've seen many bad films that had brilliant DVDs so do I recommend you buy it even though the film is bad? I've seen all-time great films that were released on poor discs so do I highly recommend you to buy it since the movie is great? To me, as a buyer, the V/A is the most important thing behind the movie so I'd never make extras an important part to a release. To me, the bare bones HUD from Paramount was a lot better release than ALIEN QUAD even though the difference in extras was about 8 discs worth.

Since I am telling people if they should spend their money or not, if you have any questions, comments or feedback, please feel free to PM me or e-mail me. I certainly appreciate any feedback I receive and since I'm doing this for the readers, I want to make sure you're happy with what you're getting.

Sorry to take this so off topic.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

This subject pops up from time to time, and it gets some support. We don't write movie reviews because we need to "feel like a critic". We do it because there ARE a lot of people who don't know about the movies in question, and even when they DO, they're curious to hear other opinions. Don't you occasionally scan reviews just to hear various thoughts about something? I know most of my e-mail comes from people who comment on my opinions of the movies, not the DVDs.

I don't understand why movie reviews as part of DVD reviews bothers people. Virtually every DVD critic splits the reviews up neatly so that readers can easily jump to the part they want to see. In my reviews, I DO base my recommendations on my opinion of the movie - it seems silly to recommend a movie I hate - but I still note whether or not fans will be happy with the product.

I know from experience that a lot of people do read the movie comments in DVD articles. At times I'd like to drop them, as they make my job more time-consuming, but the reviews would be badly incomplete without them. Movie criticism in DVD reviews is appropriate and necessary, I think...

 

[Bob Black]

"We should have taken that trip to Hawaii"

"I had the shirt for it, but you f***ked it up"

 

[Eric Fisher]

I will be picking this up. definite guilty pleasure for me.

 

[Andrew Bunk]

Just watched this tonight. Very impressed with the A/V. Not a speck or blemish to see, and the DTS was pumping for sure. Not bad for $15. I forgot how much I love this flick-I had the old release but never watched it-nice to have my Arnold collection rounded out with this one.

On the review topic, Ron's film review portions of his DVD reviews prompted me to try many a disc. There were some I wish I hadn't taken his recommendation on (Undercover Brother comes to mind), but the majority of blind purchases based on his reviews were money well spent. Not to take anything away from the current reviewers, but I think Ron's opinions on films carried more weight. I'm sure that'll happen for the current reviewers as well.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

From the American Film Institute's 400 films nominated for the top 100 American Films:

Amadeus (1984)
Atlantic City (1980)
Back To The Future (1985)
Batman (1989)
Beverly Hills Copy (1984)
Big (1988)
The Big Chill (1983)
Blade Runner (1982)
Blue Velvet (1986)
Born On The Fourth Of July (1989)
Brazil (1985)
Broadcast News (1987)
Chariots Of Fire (1981)
Children Of A Lesser God (1986)
The Color Purple (1985)
Dangerous Liasons (1988)
Dead Poet's Society (1989)
Die Hard (1988)
Do The Right Thing (1989)
Driving Miss Daisy (1989)
E.T. (1982)
The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
Fast Times At Ridgemont High (1982)
Fatal Attraction (1987)
Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986)
Field Of Dreams (1989)
Ghostbusters (1984)
Glory (1989)
Hannah And Her Sisters (1986)
The Killing Fields (1984)
The Last Emporer (1987)
The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)
Lethal Weapon (1987)
Local Hero (1983)
Melvin And Howard (1980)
Missing (1982)
Moonstruck (1987)
El Norte (1983)
On Golden Pond (1981)
Ordinary People (1980)
Platoon (1986)
Raging Bull (1980)
Raiders Of The Lost Ark (1981)
Rain Man (1988)
Reds (1981)
Return Of The Jedi (1983)
Return of The Secaucus 7 (1980)
The Right Stuff (1983)
Risky Business (1983)
Sex, Lies And Videotape (1989)
Sophie's Choice (1982)
Stranger Than Paradise (1984)
Terms Of Endearment (1983)
The Untouchables (1987)


Not a bad list. Every decade has its great films and its stinkers.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Why are this movie's supporters so apologetic? This is a perfectly enjoyable piece of work with a prescient message - just take a look at the increased sadism in recent reality TV shows; the now insane interest in image above substance in everything from fashion to political compaigns; the manipulation of reality through visual trickery to the point where the public can't tell the difference; and the continuing advance of globalisation. To me, The Running Man, along with that underrated movie from the previous decade, Rollerball (the original, not that excrescence of a remake) are amongst the more far-sighted of SF movies, simply because they show that the danger to us generally isn't rogue computers or monsters from outer space, but our own pursuit of happiness.

Yes, of course the movie has comic book sensibilities, but the plot is intentionally an exaggeration, in the same way that e.g. 1984 (for the hard-of-thinking - the book, not the movie) was when it came out. Yes, of course it's silly in parts, but then no-one attacks George Orwell for his one-dimensional characters.

I'll stick my neck out, but give me The Running Man over the high-budget pretentions of The Matrix anyday.

 

[Jonathan White]

I am with you Andrew. I think The Running Man is classic science fiction and I can't wait to own this DVD. Its up there with Total Recall and the Terminator films.

 

[Neil Joseph]

Thanks for the review. I just ordered this online as it is my understanding that the Canadian version drops the Dts-ES track.