The Running Man (2025)

 

The sense of relief I will have when this review gets posted is hard to explain. I have been as many as seven films behind in my goal to post on all my theatrical experiences. In addition to the number of films, there is the time delay from when I saw the movie to when a post finally went up, three weeks has been the longest I have ever fallen behind but now I am past that. This movie I saw two nights ago, and it will complete my most recent backlog of posts.

"The Running Man" was originally adapted for Arnold Schwarzenegger back in the 1980s. It was a pretty cheesy film, even for the times, but on a recent revisit, I thought it was much better than I remembered. The costumed killers that pursue Ben Richards were laughable, but they were fun. The themes of media manipulation and totalitarian control were however very nicely presented, and at least in the former, very prescient. This new version trods the same path, but with less wit and more complications than the original version had. It is however, still a lot of fun.

I have been a fan of Edgar Wright as a director for a while, the "Cornetto Trilogy" is a go to whenever I want to be entertained. I was disappointed when he walked away from "Ant-Man", but I can still see the influence that he had on that film. I am a little surprised to say that the new version of the "Running Man" while certainly quite good, does not feel particularly like a Wright film. There are some particularly good stunt sequences in the film, but I did not find them as manically amusing as the chases in "Baby Driver" or the combat in "Scott Pilgrim". They felt for the most part as if they could have been created by any of the talented action directors that churn out so many other films. My sense of heightened enjoyment was muted as a result.

Of the advantages that Wright's film has over it's predecessor, I would say the acting and the effects are the things that make this movie something you should see. I think Glen Powell is a solid actor, but his part here is too straight for the humor I was hoping for. Colman Domingo however leans into his role as the Network Host who can hype up an audience, bend the truth to stir emotions, and take what he is given and turn it into ratings. It was clear he was enjoying the part. The same can also be said for the most part for Josh Brolin, who as the network head with all the power, is venal, manipulative and gleeful while being so. Powell is not a weak link, his role is just not as strong during the chase sequences as it was in the first act of the film. 

The scale of the chase is vastly broader in this version of the story, and that helps quite a bit in making the film feel fresh. The special effects and video surveillance elements of the story are even stronger. While it does go over the top in the plane sequence in the third act, it was easy to believe a lot of the process of the chase in the main part of the film. The vehicles, weapons and media all project a near future that is believable.  The A.I. part of the story is to me, the most frightening element of the themes. Someone else can manipulate your persona with some technological wizardry. Unfortunately, that sort of technology is mostly available now and it is easily accessible. I see posts on Facebook that look like they could be Network Promos from this film. Reality is the victim in both the fiction of this story and in the contemporary world.

Because it lacks the outlandish characters of the 1980s film, this movie does not stand out from a bunch of other sci fi action films that have proliferated in the past couple of years. They are fine, but lack enough uniqueness to make them essential. This film is solid but you will find lots of films in the same milieu without even looking hard. 

Predator Badlands (2025)

 

I have been behind on my posts for a variety of reasons, and the major one is that I have often been wrapped up in the LAMBcast Podcast that I host. I record and edit the podcast but I also try to produce an illustrated version for YouTube. It takes a lot of time to do that, so in an effort to catch up on my promise to cover everything I see in a theater, I am simply going to share the Illustrated Podcast for "Predator Badlands" here.  The short version for those unwilling to listen or watch is that I liked the film quite well. 

Nuremberg (2025)

 

This was a film I had almost no expectations for, after hearing nearly nothing about it. There was a paid trailer in a pre show movie presentation at another film, and that was the first time I was aware of it's existence. The world has changed in massive ways when the presence of two Academy Award winning actors, in the same film, working with one another in most of the critical scenes, is not something the media is writing about, publicity is not building up, and the stars are not being showcased in countless venues. I am happy to say however, that I made the trek to the theater to see this, and I was very impressed with the screenplay and performances.

To begin with, the trials at Nuremberg are put into a different context than one might assume. Justice Robert Jackson of the U.S. Supreme Court is a key figure in creating a framework for holding these trials in the first place. International rules of conduct did not exist, leaving a void when it came to justifying the punishments that the Nazi regime so clearly deserved. Michael Shannon gives us an intellectual legal scholar who is quiet, moral, and in some ways just over his head. Shannon gives Jackson dignity but also shows his willingness to manipulate the circumstances to fit his frame of reference. He is portrayed as a character who strives for justice, but gets stranded by the limitations his side created. The best moments of Shannon's performance are in his cross examination of Hermann Goring. His confident expression and attitude evaporate as he is flummoxed by Goring on the stand. While he is largely successful in confronting the number two Nazi, there is just enough ambiguity in the evidence to allow Goring to weasel his way out of accepting responsibility, and the look of defeat that Shannon puts on Jacksons face, is just at the right level. Richard Grant gets to save the day and the face of Jackson by following up with relevant questions that show Goring's duplicity. The relief on Shannon's face is discernable. 

Rami Malek plays the psychologist Douglas Kelly, who is assigned to evaluate the prisoners and try to ensure their participation in the process by keeping them from killing themselves. He is able to convey earnestness and subterfuge very effectively on his angular face. The doctor is creating a friendly relationship with the most loathsome man on the planet, in order to protect the allies' integrity in the process. While he never seems to fall into the trap of sympathizing with the monster, he does avoid becoming the monster himself by treating his patient as a human being, a tough accomplishment.  Dr. Kelly has some mixed motives because this opportunity might give him a chance to write a book which could secure a legacy in the field of psychology. Malek's role is the volatile part in the screenplay. He rants at the mistakes he sees the command making, he jousts with his patient both seriously and playfully, and he succumbs to emotions when dealing with Goring's family.

When I say the elephant in the room is Russel Crowe's performance as Hermann Goring, I could understand why someone would think I was fat shaming him. I have joked on my podcast a few times, that Crowe as a movie star makes my own visage much easier to accept. He looks like me not like Maximus or Jim Braddock. The fact that Goring was corpulent is a part of the story, as his health  is a plot point. Crowe manages to suggest some vigor still in spite of playing the obese Reichsmarschall. Goring was described by Kelly as a narcissist, which was certainly true, and Crowe portrays him as an extremely confident and self assured antagonist. He is not leaning into a preening cock of the walk display of superiority, but rather an intellectual  skilled at gamesmanship, who is potentially going to sew doubt in the validity of the premise of the trials in the first place. There is never any doubt he would be executed, but what it would mean, depends on him being revealed as the indifferent monster he was. Crowe gives his best performance in a decade, showing us a man who has convinced himself that he has done no wrong, in spite of being responsible for the murder of millions.

I would be remiss if I failed to mention the solid work of Leo Woodall who plays the Sargent who is translator and ultimately confidant to Dr. Kelly. Justice Jackson's words give us the legal grounds for what transpired, but Sgt. Triest, as a Jewish German refugee, in the U.S. Army, provides the moral foundation that the audience will relate to. His quiet fury and desire for vengeance on one of the accused in particular, certainly seems justified, and his temperate decision at the end of the story, speaks volumes about the quality of the American's engaged in this precedent setting trial. 

This was a thoroughly engaging film, with some intellectual heft and some fantastic performances. In earlier times, it would easily have been an awards contender and be named as one of the best films of the year. The standards by which movies are judged has shifted in the last few years, and it is likely that because the targets of this morality play are so easily already identified, the weight of it's value will be diminished. That is too bad. I however, am not compelled to adhere to a "correct" thinking standard, I I will just say, this is an excellent film, and your time spent with it will be worth twice that of some of the current awards contenders. 

Frankenstein (2025)

 

The vast majority of people who will be watching Guillermo del Toro's "Frankenstein" on Netflix, which is the company that produced the film. They will certainly enjoy the film and there is a lot to admire about the movie. I had the pleasure of seeing the film in the environment that it should be experienced in, a movie theater. Netflix was wise enough to play the film for cinema goers for a couple of weeks before reverting back to being exclusively on their streaming service. 

I have a great deal of respect for del Toro, and in fact I have seen all of his theatrical films. We did a directors lookback on the LAMBcast a few years ago and I made the effort to see everything so we could cover it completely on the show.[Episode #502 October 25, 2019] Unfortunately, it is an episode lost from when we changed over the podcast storage. (Jay mat have it somewhere).

Regardless, I can say as a result of that episode that I know del Toro's work pretty well, and I have opinions that are not always inline with others. "The Shape of Water" is not a film I feel fondly of, in spite of it being his Academy Award winner. It was sanctimonious without earning the righteousness, because the artificial construct of the society was so labored it did not feel real. "Frankenstein" on the other hand, regardless of the CGI environment that it inhabits, feels realistic the whole way thru. It starts with a terrific horror action sequence that sets up the bifurcated story that de Toro has in mind. Victor Frankenstein is examined from his childhood to adult mad scientist. We can see the seeds of his mania from the relationship he had with a doting mother and mercurial father.  The arrival of a younger brother that is unlike him in most ways, does not set up a rivalry, but rather a sibling connection that sometimes feels tender and at other times exploitive. 

The first part of the film gives us Victor's story, including the information about discovering his scientific breakthroughs. We also get a good bit of the professional world that rejects him, even though his knowledge far outstrips their own. The animated corpse that he uses in his demonstration is one of the many visual frights/delights that the film offers. Oscar Isaac is solid as the frustrated scientist. His initial disappointment with the creation is a little hard to understand, except it is clear he has very little patience. Christoph Waltz shows up as the uncle of his brother's fiancé, and he has the resources to help Victor, and a hidden agenda. As usual, he improves the movie with his presence. 

Most people are going to remember the creature as embodied by Jacob Elordi. His range covers the pathetic innocence at first awareness, and then the disappointment that comes from knowing that he is different. Finally, and most compellingly, there is the rage that drives him to seek vengeance on the creator who abandoned him. The turn of the creature from mindless brute to thoughtful avenging angel is well developed and usually ignored in most of the monster movies that the creature has been featured in. 

Mia Goth continues to be one of the great, underappreciated actresses of this era. She plays the fiancé of Victor's brother, and becomes an attractive nuisance to Victor. It is clear that the two of them could easily fall into a relationship that would be damning to both of them, and it is her moral center, as contrasted to Victor's nihilism, that forms the ethical spine of the story. She is both temptress and redeemer, but more for the creature than Victor. 

The movie is gorgeous on every level, even the things in the world of the time, that are ugly, are spectacular to look at. This handsome production makes elaborate use of CGI sets and backgrounds, but it comes closer to reality than most of the out of focus backgrounds we get in most CGI heavy films.  It looked particularly good on the big screen. The streaming service will be most peoples default viewing, and I can honestly say, you will regret that you didn't get to see this in a theater. This is one of my favorite films this year. 

Evil Dead In Concert

 

There is plenty of "Evil Dead" content on this site if you look around. The original film was one of those movies that terrified me at the prospect of seeing originally. Once I crossed the threshold however, I have not been able to resist the "Deadites" and any time one of these films comes up at a theater, I make the effort to go.

As part of the "Panic at the Paramount" Halloween Programming, we got a chance to see the original film presented with a live performance of the accompanying score. This presentation is apparently touring because my friend Aaron Neuwirth saw it in Los Angeles a week before we got it here in Austin. The score is performed by an ensemble of musicians rather than a full orchestra, but they are all quite good and there were no spots where I thought the sound was empty. 

The band members are enthusiastic and the leader of the group encouraged the audience to get into the swing of things with cheers, screams and hooting or hollering as called for. It seems like the audience can fire up the performance with an  engaged response to what they are listening to. This was a lot of fun and if it comes to your neck of the woods, (see what I did there?) you should definitely make the trek out to see and hear it. 

Halloween (1978) and The Fog (1980) Panic at the Paramount Presented by Robert Rodriguez

 

As hard as it is for me to believe, I do not have a post on the original John Carpenter Halloween from 1978. I have seen this movie almost every year for twenty years at least, and I guess I never had the chance to go back and see it on the big screen until now. It seems like there must have been a Fathom Event Screening, but I looked on the site here and found nothing. So thank you Paramount Theater for giving me this opportunity.

Although not the first "slasher" horror film, that title must belong to "Psycho", John Carpenter's Halloween defined the genre in the late 70s and for the last fifty years has been the template for all the subsequent slasher films around. Obviously, the title "Halloween" helps make this a perennial, something it most certainly not have achieved under the original title "The Babysitter Murders". So much care was taken to set up the characters who are being stalked, it is different that almost all the subsequent films which make the victims into nearly nameless notches on the knife, axe, chainsaw of the killers in later films. The three main girls are introduced and each gets some moments to be a real teenager, before they become the target.  Laurie, Annie and Lynda are average girls, with love lives that vary from the raucous to the non-existent. In the end it is Laurie, the virginal Jamie Leigh Curtis who survives and is remembered, but Annie had a well developed suspense scene in the film that is just as effective as the climax moments, at drawing a scared response from the audience.

Donald Pleasance is a little crazed as Dr. Loomis, although from what he knows, it is perfectly understandable. His sense of urgency does carry the pacing of the film in some of the spots where the killer is not on screen or actively pursuing he girls. I was a little nonplussed at the reaction of some of the audience at the screening. They seemed unable to adjust their post modern sensibilities to the late seventies context. They have seen scream too many times to know that the reason that meta narrative exists at all is that the original films took place. I felt a little like Randy at the party, I know the rules and why they existed in 1978, but no one else seemed to care. They did still appreciate the film, but I could not understand why they laughed at some of the moments in the film that are frightening or serious. 

Anyway, I found the movie to be continuously compelling, and well shot, utilizing locations in Southern California that I grew up in as Haddonfield, Illinois. Michael Myers becomes an iconic masked killer and there is a long line of slashers that followed in his wake. 

Director Robert Rodriguez was presenting the film with a surprise second feature, which was only revealed at the screening. It turned out he was planning a Carpenter double feature, by including Carpenter's next Theatrical Feature "The Fog"   

I saw "The Fog" in it's original release and I have always liked the movie. It is a ghost story, told as a ghost tory with malevolent forces returning to wreak vengeance on the descendants of those who wronged them.

Richard Kirkham · Robert Rodriguez Introduces The Fog

I like the fact that not everyone who gets murdered by the ghosts, deserves their fate. After all, furious spirits from beyond the grave are not always reasonable. This film puts Jamie Leigh Curtis in the story, but she is not really the star. If there is a featured performer it is the then wife of the director, Adrienne Barbeau. She plays the evening DJ at the local radio station and her studio is at a high point in the seaside community, so she can see the dangerous fog coming off the ocean, and she directs people to flee when it is clear that the fog contains the ghosts that have returned for their justice. 

Jamie Leigh's Mom, Janet Leigh, is also in the picture, a nice bit of stunt casting but not one that was essential. Carpenter made running from the weather much more thrilling than Shyamalan did in "The Happening". It is a lot scarier to have the fog manifest as dead sailors bent on killing, than leaves blowing in the wind.

I can's say it all makes sense, but I like the fact that Tom Atkins gets played as a sex symbol and John Houseman tells a scary story to kids on the beach. All in all it was a ton of fun.

An American Werewolf in London (1981) Panic at the Paramount

 

The "Panic! at the Paramount" series this year has featured several special presentations that required an additional admission fee past our membership subscription. That has been perfectly reasonable given the quality of the programming. This presentation of the John Landis classic, featured a Q and A after the movie with the film's star David Naughton, who turned out to be quite the raconteur.  He told us a number of funny stories about the production and working with the special effects make-up of Rick Baker

This is another of the great 1980s horror films that initiated the practice of mixing humor in with the frights. Landis was the right guy to do this having a great background in comedy, having made both "Animal House" and "the Blues Brothers". This film came out the summer I was working as a delivery driver for a photo supply company in Los Angeles.  One of the places I delivered to, printed movie posters, and I just could not manage to snag one for this movie from the stacks of them I had to walk by when making a delivery to the printing company. 

Jack and David are two college students, traveling through Europe on a summer excursion. They end up in a remote part of England, walking through a rural area, that is populated by a community living with a secret that casts fear over them. They are not particularly friendly natives and the boys are sent packing into the dark with a warning to stick to the road and stay off the moors. The humor had already started with the kibbitzing between the two young men, but it get more intensely humorous when they realize they have wandered off the road and they hear a howling animal near them. The tone shifts suddenly, and a horrifying bloody attack ensues. That is the pattern for the rest of the movie. A moment of levity is suddenly dashed by some horror, or a moment of terror becomes a joke in the hands of the actors and director. 

Rick Baker famously won the first Academy Award for the new make-up category, for the combination of prosthetics, puppetry and hair and make-up moments. The scene where David's hand extends as it becomes a paw was shot one time. Landis called cut and print and was ready to go to the next shot, but Baker had spent months getting the effect ready and was not prepared to be done so quickly. As Naughton told it, Landis looked at Baker and asked, "Does it do something else" and the flummoxed make up master had to say no, and Landis simply said, "Let's move on then."

The use of pop tunes that evoked the moon was another early innovation. Tons of movies use "needle drops" these days, but in 1981, most films relied on original music for their cues. I can't say that "America Werewolf in London" was the first to use them, but it is the earliest film I can remember that used previous record hits for the distinct purpose of highlighting a scene in the movie. Other films may have used popular songs as background, but this movie was using them as punchlines and energy points.

It might be fair to classify the movie as a romance as well as a horror-comedy. The lovely Jenny Agutter plays the nurse who takes a special interest in David after he is discharged from the hospital. Their love affair is a touching counter-point to the horror story that David is living through. His friend Jack makes frequent appearances in the film, after his character has died, and there are great visual jokes that go along with some gruesome imagery. This is another example of how gallows humor is injected into the story.

I have heard it said that the 1980s were the golden age of horror films. I think that may be a little bit of an exaggeration, but having experienced "Re-Animator", Fright Night", "The Fog" and this movie, all in the last month, I might be convinced. 

 

Fright Night (1985) Re-Visit

 

Celebrating the 40th Anniversary of it's release, is one of my favorite horror films from the 1980s, "Fright Night". This suburban take on vampire lore has all the elements that made the 80s horror films so much fun. There is nudity, blood, great practical effects, and a sense of humor that fit the times so well. It also has a couple of iconic performances from veteran actors, who are utilized perfectly in this film. This is one of the great ones for you horror fans, so sit back and read while I gush about how great this movie is. 

Charlie Brewster is a high school kid, navigating his hormones, struggling with his grades and hung up on a lot of the geeky things that any horror movie fan might care for. He lives with his mother in a nice suburb in an older two story house. His bedroom happens to face the vacant house next door, and as you can imagine, he starts noticing things there that are disturbing. Like a lot of kids in the 70s and 80s, he is a fan of a late night movie show that features horror films, many of them from the 1950s. This fact plays a part because his girlfriend thinks that he is conflating what he sees on the TV with what is happening next door, the arrival of a vampire.

The mundane neighborhood feels like the perfect place for a vampire to hang out, and this vampire is the exquisitely disguised Jerry Dandridge. He looks like a night club lothario, speaks as if he is a cultured antiques dealer and he has an interesting cover that explains some of his activities. Well before it became a cable TV phenomena, Jerry and his familiar Billy Cole, flip houses. So there is always material coming in and out, and the windows might be covered for lighting reasons. They do however fail to cover the upstairs bedroom windows, and that is where Charlie witnesses one of Jerry's meals being consumed. 

How does a normal kid, convince anyone to listen to him when he cries vampire. The murders in the town point to Jerry from Charlie's perspective, and when he goes to the police and tries to get them involved, suddenly Jerry is as aware of Charlie as Charlie is aware of him. The battle of wills and the vampire strategies make up the bulk of the plot, aided by two terrific secondary characters. Charlie has a oddball friend, nicknamed "Evil Ed" who provides Charlie with advice about resisting a vampire. Ed is played by Stephen Geoffreys, who was born to play a young Jack Nicolson, if ever they needed an actor for a flashback sequence. His gleeful laugh and haughty distain for Charlie's story make the plot more interesting.

The character of horror nerd Ed is not the only source of assistance that Charlie seeks out, and this is where the best element in the film comes in to play. Charlie contacts Peter Vincent, the washed up horror movie actor, who hosts the local "Fright Night" movie show. Vincent is played by the late Roddy McDowall. McDowall had more than 250 acting credits to his name, including the Academy Award winning "How Green Was My Valley" and "Lassie Come Home" as well as four of the five original "Planet of the Apes" movies. This was the juiciest  part he ever had, a craven coward when faced with a real vampire, his fearless vampire hunter from the movies is exposed. McDowall hams up the actor part of the script, but also delivers some real pathos to the character. Peter is forced to become what he has only pretended to be in the past. Watching him grow a spine when faced with the consequences of his lack of faith, is one of the great moments of acting in the film. I will continue to insist that he should have been recognized with supporting actor awards for this movie, but of course horror films get overlooked all the time by prestige organizations.

Opposite Peter Vincent is our vampire, played by Chris Sarandon. A vampire named "Jerry" is just the kind of twist that is needed to make the genre fresh for the era. Sarandon follows the script impeccably, presenting Jerry as innocuous at times, and threatening in other moments. He has the slick confidence that a would be Don Juan would portray to the world, all the time he casually munches on an apple , he really is licking his lips with his piercing eyes. He moves casually up and down the stairs and laughs off the challenges of the humans trying to end him. He has tender scenes with both Amy and Ed, suggesting a deeper emotional core than just the need to feed. His performance is the equal of his counterpart, and one of the  most memorable vampires in movies you are likely to meet. 

Finally, I need to say something about the effects and make-up. This is a movie that was made at the height of practical effects, before CGI rendered real on camera props and make-up less important. When Jerry transforms into his vampire shape, it is repulsive and frightening. There is a jump scare moment with a transformed Evil Ed, that is heart wrenching in spite of the plot point he was engaged in. The transformation of Amy is one of the most startling horror images I can remember from that decade. All of those moments will make you long for the artists of that era, and resent the coders that have taken over their roles. I highly recommend this film to everyone. 

Good Boy (2025)

 

Here is another of the best films of the year, that I am getting to, way past the time I saw it. "Good Boy" is a horror film with a relatively brief running time, but it will deliver the suspense, shocks and dread that you crave with these kinds of movies, and it will give you a real hero to root for in 
Indy" the terrific star of the movie, and the title character. In case you still don't know, "Indy" is a dog and the film story is told through his point of view. Dog lovers should be entranced with this film and relieved but a bit sad at the resolution. I don't want to give any spoilers, but be assured, you will be ok as an animal lover when this is all done.

Our lead actor, is the pet of the director, and has not been trained as an actor. "Indy" is reacting to the elements of the story, but the actor Indy is sometimes just being a dog, who is being closely watched by his human companion, so that editing and normal dog behavior can be crafted into s scary story that features a dog. I am all for the praise that the dog is receiving for his performance, but the talk of an Academy Award nomination should probably belong to the editing team as much as our canine leading man. 

The movie is a haunted house type story, although there are moments of possession and human perfidity. Todd is the human featured in the film, but we barely see his face in any of the shots. At first I believed the character was a recovering drug addict, but as the movie goes on, it becomes apparent that Todd is suffering from cancer, and it is effecting his personality and behaviors. There is as a result some ambiguity as to whether some of the events are supernatural or merely the ramification of Todd's declining health. Indy knows there is something wrong, and he is loyal to a fault. Any dog owner who has instantly regretted snapping at their dog in a moment of stress, knows how wonderful it is that our pets can forget a momentary detour from our usual path. 

Indy wants to do the right thing, but as a dog, he can't understand some of the things he sees, and that we see through his eyes. There are moments of horror that reflect some violence, but the movie is really about the horror of losing touch with your humanity. There are a couple of good jump scares, and there really is a supernatural element to the movie, but while dread is the feeling that envelops the story, it is really just sadness that forms the climax.

The lack of dialogue and exposition will be challenging to some viewers, but anyone who has loved a dog will want to stay invested in Indy's journey. The hair on the back of your neck will stand up a couple of times, and there may seem to be jeopardy to the dog, but in the end  this is the story of a good boy, who struggles in his animal brain, to make sense of the world he finds himself in with his human companion. This movie is a triumph and deserves the accolades it is receiving. 

Roofman (2025)

 

The fact that it has taken me more than three weeks to post on this film, should not in any way be seen as a fault in the movie. From my perspective, this is one of the best films I have seen this year and it has a strong chance of making my end of the year list. I have simply been busy and lackadaisical in following through on my promise to post on everything I see in a theater. This movie might not be on any screen near you, but it should be available for streaming soon and it will be worthy your money to do so.

"Roofman" is based on the true story of a burglar/robber, who despite being a criminal and threatening people, seems to also have been a person with a good heart and brain. The fact that we can sympathize with the character, in spite of his criminal activity is a combination of the real person the story is based on, and the script/performance supplied by the movie. Everyone likes an underdog, and the character of Jeff, played by Channing Tatum, gives us that underdog in a very appealing package. He is a family man, struggling with the inability to hold a job that would take care of his family. He is smart enough to figure out a low risk criminal career, but of course gets caught. He is also smart enough to figure out a way to escape, but he has not figured out what to do once he has, He is all tactics without strategy. 

Tatum has grown into a very appealing actor and this role is probably his career best performance so far. He hits the right notes of desperation in the opening act, as Jeff falls into a life of crime. His victims, who are not the ones financially responsible, all seem to feel he was a decent guy, in spite of being held up. He is polite, apologetic, and considerate of the employees that he encounters. In he second act of the film, he meets and bonds with a woman, who is unaware of his status as a fugitive, and she sees his good qualities and falls in love with that guy. Kirsten Dunst plays the friendly employee of the Toy R Us store that Jeff is hiding out in, and her sincerity and open nature are infectious. I personally think this is a career best performance as well. Dunst and Tatum have great on screen chemistry, which makes the outlandish but true story attractive to us as viewers.

There are a few parts of the movie plot that seem to be manufactured to get the characters into a coherent story. Jeff is hiding out for six months because he has to wait on his fixer buddy to get back from an overseas job. He also has to commit another crime, to be able to pay for the escape plan he is getting from this mysterious compatriot. That one last job brings together the two lives he has been leading, which is of course the climax of the film, so maybe it feels a little inevitable. What I did like is the fidelity of the story to the real events. They don't manufacture a resolution to make us happy, they just spin the outcome to make it feel less sad. 

The film is sold as a comedy, and while there are comedic moments, that is not really an accurate description of the movie. This is a romantic drama with a real life criminal background, which is doomed from the start. The fact that it is ultimately a downer is overcome by the bright relationship between the two leads. Peter Dinklage provides an antagonist that diverts us from the fact that Jeff is the criminal. Dinklage can do both the comedic and the a-hole parts well and he does both of those in this film. My friend Howard and I talked about this film for a special episode of the LAMBcast, when that gets posted, I will share the podcast here with you so you can listen if interested.