03.15.10 By: John Gholson
Every Friday we present a new film as part of the Sci-Fi Squad Movie Club (like a book club for movie geeks), asking some questions of our own while we watch the film, with the ultimate goal of starting a discussion about science-fiction and some of the movies we love. This was my first week to host, and I trotted out an old favorite from when I was a kid, Michael Crichton's Runaway (you can read Friday's post here).The movie can be streamed through Netflix, so don't feel like you had to catch it over the weekend to join in on the fun. It's a 1984 techno-thriller about a beat cop (Tom Selleck) who handles robotic mishaps in the near-future, and uncovers a plot involving microchips that cause robots to go berserk (as well as powering experimental heat-guided bullets).
Let's get into some of the questions posed in Friday's post...

Does the mundane "everyday-living" approach to the robots help or hinder the film?
One of the things I like the most about Runaway is also something that I think hurts it in the end. The robots are treated as part of day-to-day life, which helps you buy into this world where everyone has a robot in their own home, but, in removing the "specialness" of a world filled with robots, Crichton ends up with a movie that ultimately feels like a plain old cop thriller.
There's no tongue-in-cheek presentation ala Robocop, it's just a straight-up police story that happens to have robots in it. For the first hour or so, that approach makes Runaway feel really unique. Only when Ramsey starts pursuing Dr. Luther, do things begin to feel more rote.
Is Crichton's vision of the future obsolete or is this still a plausible direction for robotics?
In 1984, it may have seemed like household robots were only a decade away, but as it turns out, we're just fine without them. Instead, we made the things we already owned smarter -- phones, cars, refrigerators, televisions, etc. We're getting the convenience we were dreaming of without using robot workers.
I think we'll continue to see science move forward with developments in artificial intelligence and automation, but I don't think this vision of a future filled with robots holds true anymore. Maybe someday that dream make a comeback, but for now it seems like a quaint picture of a future that didn't exactly pan out.

Cornfields and vertigo - Are these intentional nods to Hitchcock?
I don't think the nods were intentional, just coincidental. I have no idea if Crichton was a Hitchcock fan, and Runaway certainly isn't in the vein of the type of thrillers Hitchcock was making.
What's your take on the acting style of Gene Simmons?
Gene Simmons is, frankly, awful. Dr. Luther is the single weakest link in Crichton's screenplay -- an underwritten villain role with no interesting characterization and a mundane motivation (money). By casting rocker Simmons, Crichton makes Luther even more plain and cartoony. Simmons has exactly one facial expression which he wears for pretty much the entire running time of the film. It's a harsh contrast against Selleck's realistic performance.
The KISS frontman should keep on rock and rolling all night and partying every day. It'll keep him from acting.

Is the scene with the psychic necessary to the film?
In one scene from the film, G.W. Bailey, playing the Chief of Police, urges Ramsey to seek guidance from the police department's resident psychic. I'm guessing the point of the scene is to show that in the future, the job of a psychic has become an invaluable position in the police department.
It's a cute notion, but the scene doesn't convey any new information at all and only serves to slow the film down.
What elements make the film Michael Crichton-esque?
Well, there's the whole technology thing, first of all.
I'm sure if you're familiar with the writer at all, you know that Crichton's work stems from real world ideas that spin into more fantastic tales. In 1984, strides in robotics painted a picture of a fully-automated future, and Crichton's idea that police would someday be needed to handle robotic problems is a unique one. It's indicative of how Crichton takes an idea from the headlines, then asks questions about where that technology might take us in a decade or so. It's the type of thinking that earmarks his works like Jurassic Park, Prey, and The Terminal Man.
What did you think of Runaway? Did you think of any other points of interest while watching the film?
Filed under: Discussion Posts, Movies We Love
Tags: gene simmons, GeneSimmons, michael crichton, MichaelCrichton, runaway, SFS Movie Club, SFSMovieClub, tom selleck, TomSelleck









Puckat 3-16-2010
My opinion might be a bit biased as this was an old favorite of my childhood. It almost seems as if your take was most or less negative and while I'd admit the film has more than its share of problems, it was 80s cheese at its grandest.
Simmons was indeed over the top but so was (I'm sure as I was 2 at the time) the concept of robots acting as day laborers and nannies. These days, we have robots to assist but not in such an overt way. Who can remember having a physical phone book for addresses or planes that had to be manually piloted to bomb a Middle Eastern village? Okay, so maybe those things still exist but their days are numbered I say!
The psychic scene was garbage. I suspect as you did, it was meant to convey a turn to the more out-there (for lack of a better word) means of doing business to go along with the proliferation of the machine helpers.
And while the movie became rather routine after the hotel shootout, how can you say it was a typical cop thriller? Did Willis or Stallone have to battle spiders that could scale walls, affix to the ceiling, jump at you, shoot acid in your face, inject you with it and then blow up? I posit not and they were indeed awesome.
This wasn't a great movie by any stretch but still enjoyable. If for nothing else than Cynthia Rhodes and Tom Selleck's mustache.
Gholsonat 3-16-2010
I still like it (or I wouldn't have chosen it), but watching it for the first time in 15+ years took some of the "shine" off of it for me.
"Did Willis or Stallone have to battle spiders that could scale walls, affix to the ceiling, jump at you, shoot acid in your face, inject you with it and then blow up? I posit not and they were indeed awesome."
Touche, sir.
Also, sincere thanks for commenting.
Terryat 3-17-2010
Just watched this for the first time ever...
and wow...that was god awful. Minus Selleck's stache, of course.
Now that I got that out of my system, I should probably first let it be known that this film came out during my birth year. Growing up with more modern day sci-fi films, I think it's much harder for me to relate with 25+ year old films, such as this.
I'll provide more thoughts later, but for now I must leave.
Eric Hat 3-18-2010
My wife got me to watch this over the weekend, I was very surprised to see it pop up here. I thought the flick was pretty good, especially with the nostalgia factor, I think there was a certain charm to treating the robots as simply a new problem to deal with, but a normal one.