This week, we took a look at the kind of action movie you can make for $10 million and the kind that you can make for $250 million. There may have been a couple of issues that forced us to record half of this show a 2nd time, but dare I say the show is better for this mistake? Probably not, but I still think we recovered nicely. This is also the show where we reveal that we are masters...MASTERS of the art of impersonations.
Enjoy!
Three years ago, Ryan and I were both a little underwhelmed by the first entry into the Guardians of the Galaxy franchise. Three years later, and one of Marvel's most successful properties couldn't care less what a few middle aged men in middle America think about the juggernaut they've created. Still, we have plenty to say, good and bad, and since we have all this recording equipment, we might as well make a show.
Enjoy!
The Power Rangers really seemed to mean a lot to plenty of people out there. Was this movie for them, or was it for a new generation of kids? Did the Power Rangers movie fulfill the promise of having an openly gay superhero? Did it spend more time talking about Krispy Kreme then it does actually showing us the Power Rangers? The answers to these questions and more in this week's episode of Coming Off the Reels.
Enjoy!
John Wick 2 and Logan go together like peanut butter and jelly...like biscuits and gravy...like rama lama lama ka dinga da dinga dong. These two blood-soaked films show that style, substance, and a hard R rating, can still find an audience in a world where too many films are watered down to try and appeal to the largest audience possible. Then again, someone brought a baby to our screening of Logan, so maybe it is a movie for everyone. Spoiler alert, the baby seemed to hate Logan, and we seemed to hate the parents who brought a baby to a late show of an R rated film. Also, Drew sings poorly, and everyone gangs up on Sean for his thoughts on Ruby Rose's character in JW2. So pretty much what always happens.
Enjoy!
We aren't just about new movies here at COTR, sometimes we like to look back to a simpler time, when movies and our palates were far less sophisticated. Ryan, Roy, Sean and myself all made a list of out 5 favorite movies from 1986, along with our least favorite movie from that year. We also each watched something for the first time, something that maybe we should have watched in the last 30 years, but just couldn't get around to it. We will of course be reviewing new movies in the future, but occasionally it is just as much fun to look back.
Enjoy!
We are back baby, and this time we really want to make it work. I know we’ve said that before, but this time we really mean it. We’ve grown up a lot since the last time, and now we feel like we’ve really got our shit together. I know last time we really let you down. Sure, at first we tried to be a part of your life, but eventually we would just show up on special occasions, maybe a podcast around the Oscars or something and then we left completely for awhile, but this time we really want to be there for you. I know that a lot of people go through these kinds of problems, but maybe I have a solution. How would you feel if we brought it a couple of new people, to maybe spice things up a little? That way if one of us has a headache, or just isn't in the mood, someone else can tag in, and we can all walk away happy.
So welcome to Coming Off the Reels…let’s say 12.0. This ever changing podcast will hopefully show up a bit more regularly than it did in the past. Sometimes we will talk about new movies, other times we may be revisiting a random year from the past or a specific theme. We will just kind of make this up as we go. And if no one ever listens to a single podcast, then we will just be a group of people who sit around, have a few drinks, and talk about the movies that make them happy, and that is not a wasted endeavor.
Wish us luck.
Love Always,
Coming Off the Reels
I remember the first time I saw the trailer for Melancholia, I thought, “Looks like an interesting concept for a low-key sci-fi film. And then, I remember seeing a trailer for Another Earth and thinking, “Damn, seems a lot like the concept for Melancholia.” I was so wrong on so many levels.
But that’s another conversation for another time. What’s important is that my initial curiosity for Melancholia piqued my curiosity for Another Earth. I ended up seeing Another Earth way before Melancholia and loved it. A scant year after Another Earth was released, Sound of My Voice came out. And while the film certainly didn’t share the same plot threads as the other two films, it still gave off an eerily similar vibe; science fiction-y, low-key, ambient, atmospheric, and, once again, starring Brit Marling.
The story revolves around journalist Peter Aitken (Christopher Denham), a fledgling journalist trying to get a big break by infiltrating an underground cult with the help of his girlfriend Lorna Michaelson (Nicole Vicius).
Getting to the cult meetings involves thorough showering, dressing in white gowns, strange meeting places, blindfolded van rides, and some of the most intricate secret handshakes known to man. The cult leader, Maggie (Brit Marling) claims she woke up one day in a tub in an abandoned apartment where she had been magically transported from the future. The year 2054, to be exact.
She promises that she will take them back with her if they all jump through the many hoops she puts in front of them, including blind faith in her extraordinary claims, eating and regurgitating fruit, days of starvation, and eating worms. Just to name a few.
As the time to make the journey to 2054 comes nearer and nearer Peter and Lorna start to wonder about each other, adding an interesting layer to the film. Each of them, at one point or another, believes the other may actually be falling under Maggie’s spell. And all of this, of course, is shrouded in mystery. IS she telling the truth? IS she making it all up for some more sinister reason?
I enjoyed this film on a number of levels. First off, I like Brit Marling, although I could see how some might not. She is an interesting actress. In both films she plays a similar character; a somewhat lethargic, doe-eyed lead who, despite her languor, still manages to be enigmatically charismatic. In that way, in particular, she is the perfect lead for the film.
In addition to excellent casting, the film works well on a number of other levels. The way Peter sometimes seems to lead Lorna parallels the way Maggie leads the cult. Peter, who starts out the most incredulous of the group, is often times seen wearing a gown that is a slightly different shade than the rest of the group. A nice color scheme to reflect his skepticism.
The dialogue. While some of it does seem ridiculous, one must suspend their disbelief to some degree. For example, the idea behind eating and then regurgitating the fruit — that they were purging themselves of previous wrongs done by them and to them in order to purify themselves – seems a little silly, especially since it just HAPPENS to coincide with the day that Peter ingests a tiny microphone so he can get audio of the cult. Mmmmm….contrived.
But, then again, it is a cult, and I would rather the filmmakers take a stab at creating a personality rather than what I saw in the woefully overrated Martha Marcy May Marlene where the main reason we seemed to be given as to why the members were wooed to joining was because the leader (John Hawkes) knew how to play guitar.
By and large, though, the script is well written, dialogue and all. There are a lot of loose ends at the end of the film, A LOT, but the film is short, under 90 minutes, and I enjoyed it enough I would consider watching it again to see if I could piece the puzzle together.
Written by Ryan Venson
Part Two of our Best of 2014 list, AKA the part where we're a bit more inebriated, a bit more incoherent, and a bit more loud. Also Drew and Ryan rant about Guardians of the Galaxy being overrated, and everybody thinks Ryan is crazy because he tries to parallel best picture nominee The Grand Budapest Hotel to Deuce Bigelow. I was going to put a Deuce Bigelow poster on here, but could not bring myself to do it because it's one of the worst films ever. So, also, Nightcrawler is discussed.
After a long layoff.......about a year and a half, give or take.....we decided to overdo it a bit. Collecting two enthusiastic friends (Sean McClain and Roy King), we each meticulously created a top 10 list. With an honorable mention. And some films we didn't like too much. And some disappointments. Then we added booze to the mix. This all led to about a three hour recording, which we've decided to parse in to two separate podcasts. That way after you finish the first part and your ears hurt from all of our tomfoolery, you can claim you didn't know about the second part.
We are all over the map this time. Action movie with A-List actors and big explosions...check. Successful horror movie that is bound to be a franchise...check. Low budget British mystery/thriller with accents so thick subtitles are required...got it. Differing opinions on one or more of today's movies...you betcha'! Picture of Burt Reynolds laying naked on a bearskin rug...er...sure thing. Anything for our 2 fans.
Drew and I pride ourselves on tying the two films in our podcasts together even with the most tenuous parallels. Mud is an "Indie" film about two young boys living on a river (presumably the Mississippi) in Arkansas who stumble upon a fugitive named Mud living in a deserted boat in the woods. Mud claims his crime was one of passion, to defend the woman he loves, and implores the boys to help him escape his predicament.
This is the End, meanwhile, is a rollicking, often vulgar comedy about the end of the world starring a bunch of fairly well-know to not-so-well-known actors playing themselves.
Are they both side-splittingly funny? Are they both about the power of love? Do they both have great performances from Jonah Hill? Guess you'll just have to listen.
Here is a short episode about the upcoming film Now You See Me. Perhaps I spend too much time talking about how terrible the audience was, but the episode is only like 6 minutes longs, so I think you can suffer through.
Tired of how we are always talking about movies that people have heard of? Well this episode is just for you. How unknown are these movies? Ryan and I saw Aftershock on opening weekend, and during that weekend it made $40,000 total. Just how little is that for a movie to make? Well that same weekend, Silver Linings Playbook, having been released six months before, and and having already been released on blu ray and dvd two weeks before, still managed to make three times as much as Aftershock that weekend. We work tirelessly to find you the real hidden gems. You're welcome. John Dies at the End...well...what can I say about a movie like this? It really just needs to be experienced. I just don't have the words right now, and yet somehow we thought it would make a perfect movie to talk about while we drink and record it for all of you. I'm sorry.
It may be a few months in to 2013, but never too late for a best of 2012 list. Did I put Wes Anderson's newest film, "Moonrise Kingdom" on my list? Did Drew put "Frankenweenie" and "Battleship" on his? Guess you'll just have to listen to find out...
Starring: Christopher Denham, Nicole Vicius, Brit Marling Directed by: Zal Batmanglij
I remember the first time I saw the trailer for Melancholia, I thought, “Looks like an interesting concept for a low-key sci-fi film. And then, I remember seeing a trailer for Another Earth and thinking, “Damn, seems a lot like the concept for Melancholia.” I was so wrong on so many levels.
But that’s another conversation for another time. What’s important is that my initial curiosity for Melancholia piqued my curiosity for Another Earth. I ended up seeing Another Earth way before Melancholia and loved it. A scant year after Another Earth was released, Sound of My Voice came out. And while the film certainly didn’t share the same plot threads as the other two films, it still gave off an eerily similar vibe; science fiction-y, low-key, ambient, atmospheric, and, once again, starring Brit Marling.
The story revolves around journalist Peter Aitken (Christopher Denham), a fledgling journalist trying to get a big break by infiltrating an underground cult with the help of his girlfriend Lorna Michaelson (Nicole Vicius).
Getting to the cult meetings involves thorough showering, dressing in white gowns, strange meeting places, blindfolded van rides, and some of the most intricate secret handshakes known to man. The cult leader, Maggie (Brit Marling) claims she woke up one day in a tub in an abandoned apartment where she had been magically transported from the future. The year 2054, to be exact.
She promises that she will take them back with her if they all jump through the many hoops she puts in front of them, including blind faith in her extraordinary claims, eating and regurgitating fruit, days of starvation, and eating worms. Just to name a few.
As the time to make the journey to 2054 comes nearer and nearer Peter and Lorna start to wonder about each other, adding an interesting layer to the film. Each of them, at one point or another, believes the other may actually be falling under Maggie’s spell. And all of this, of course, is shrouded in mystery. IS she telling the truth? IS she making it all up for some more sinister reason?
I enjoyed this film on a number of levels. First off, I like Brit Marling, although I could see how some might not. She is an interesting actress. In both films she plays a similar character; a somewhat lethargic, doe-eyed lead who, despite her languor, still manages to be enigmatically charismatic. In that way, in particular, she is the perfect lead for the film.
In addition to excellent casting, the film works well on a number of other levels. The way Peter sometimes seems to lead Lorna parallels the way Maggie leads the cult. Peter, who starts out the most incredulous of the group, is often times seen wearing a gown that is a slightly different shade than the rest of the group. A nice color scheme to reflect his skepticism.
The dialogue. While some of it does seem ridiculous, one must suspend their disbelief to some degree. For example, the idea behind eating and then regurgitating the fruit -- that they were purging themselves of previous wrongs done by them and to them in order to purify themselves – seems a little silly, especially since it just HAPPENS to coincide with the day that Peter ingests a tiny microphone so he can get audio of the cult. Mmmmm….contrived.
But, then again, it is a cult, and I would rather the filmmakers take a stab at creating a personality rather than what I saw in the woefully overrated Martha Marcy May Marlene where the main reason we seemed to be given as to why the members were wooed to joining was because the leader (John Hawkes) knew how to play guitar.
By and large, though, the script is well written, dialogue and all. There are a lot of loose ends at the end of the film, A LOT, but the film is short, under 90 minutes, and I enjoyed it enough I would consider watching it again to see if I could piece the puzzle together.
Written by Ryan Venson
It's getting near Christmas, so we though not only would we finally record a new podcast, our gift to you, but that we would also fill it with seasonal films. Which is exactly why we reviewed Looper -- a futuristic, time-travelling sci-fi film about hitmen hired to kill their future selves -- and Killing Them Softly -- a gritty, violent, hard-hitting picture centered around a New Orleans mob.So pull up a chair, warm your chestnuts, and spike your egg-nog! Christmas season is here!
Starring: Brian Backer, Brian Matthews Directed by: Tony Maylam
Many times when there are two films out with similar plots people will take it upon themselves to tout the lesser known film as the better film, sometimes simply because it is lesser known. This will happen a lot with remakes, in particular remakes of foreign films. The perfect example of this is The Ring and its Japanese counterpart, Ringu.
I, like most people in the United States, saw The Ring first. I loved it. I felt it had great direction, I loved the feel of the film and, even though I thought it dragged on a bit long interjecting too many false endings, it was a horror film I felt valued suspense and mood over blood and gore.
Individuals on the internet -- sometimes reflected through reviews on IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes, sometimes on horror movie-centric message boards -- seemed to hold the original in higher regard. So I rented it (yes, I rented it from Hollywood Video…..not only during a time when video stores were still prevalent, but also in a time when dial-up modems were as well). I was totally underwhelmed.
It has probably been about a decade since I saw Ringu, so my recollection of why I disliked it has been muddied by the sands of time, but I didn’t think it was as captivating as the American version. I remember thinking it seemed more like the people hyping it wanted to be in some sort of exclusive club. “Yeah, you may have seen The Ring, but have you seen Ringu? Oh, you didn’t even now it was a remake? Just like the ignorant movie going public, to seek out the inferior American product. Can’t hold a match to the original.”
Ringu wasn’t terrible, it just seemed the gap between the two was small enough that decrying the American version as inferior seemed contemptuous for the sake of it. This is a reoccurring pattern and seems especially true with lesser known films, causing others who don’t like the smaller film to throw out terms like “elitist” and “pretentious.” Maybe that’s true…the feeling of having found something everybody else has overlooked and then trying to introduce it to the public can be exhilarating, despite how truly superior the film may or may not be. How do you quantify a “better” film anyway? Beauty is, after all, in the eye of the beholder.
I’m getting really long-winded trying to make a simple point about the b-movie slasher, The Burning: It blows. Bad.
Most of the time when people gripe about two films with similar plots it is because they were released during a short time period. Some group will then, inevitably, take it upon themselves to tout the one that came out marginally earlier and, usually, the less popular one, as being the better film. Maybe even touting it as a “trendsetter” (see The Blair Witch Project and The Last Broadcast), in particular if it also has a smaller budget. As mentioned before, folks will also go on about how much better an original is than a remake, especially if the original is not well known.
The weird thing about The Burning is it came well after Friday the 13th, cost THREE TIMES as much, and is trying so hard to capitalize on the popularity of the former that it should be an embarrassment for all involved. The antagonist is a slasher with a knife (well, actually, a giant pair of shears), it’s set near a lake, it’s a revenge story, it’s filled with horny teenagers, it takes place at a camp.
Yet it is SO DULL. The first murder occurs FIFTY MINUTES in to the ninety-minute long film, and it is a truly generic shot of a slashed neck. About ten minutes later our villain pops out of a boat to ambush some campers on a raft, and dispatches a large group. There’s some “so bad they’re good” SFX here, but nothing especially interesting. Since our baddie uses a large pair of gardening sheers, most die by a stab in the gut or a slit to the neck, although one fellow does get his fingers lopped off in a particularly humorous manner.
The antagonist in our film is a janitor who was severely burned by a group of campers five years prior. This makes him angry with “campers.” So he’s gonna go kill some. Mmm. Now I’m PRAYING for the half-assed expositional tripe I usually receive from a John Carpenter film.
Neither Friday or The Burning are particularly well made films, but there is no way anybody in the world is claiming the technical aspects of The Burning are what make it better. By and large it is totally devoid of suspense, its script is pretty much completely stolen, I don’t even remember what the soundtrack was like. Not to mention the kills come way too late in the film, are all completely forgettable and, infeasible though it may seem, the characters are even more two-dimensional.
The climax of the film is utterly tedious as well. We have two “heroes.” Alfred, a whiny peeping tom who we are cheering to get killed in the final scene, and Todd, a camp counselor who turns out to be one of the original campers who burned the janitor five years earlier. I was cheering for him to get killed as well so maybe the film could have some spark of originality. Alas, despite my hopes and dreams the dynamic duo clumsily dispatches our antagonist, despite the fact he owns not only the element of surprise but also a flamethrower.
I guess, what I’m trying to say here, is sometimes the lesser known film isn’t necessarily a diamond in the rough. It’s hard to say Friday the 13th, from a quality standpoint, is heads and tails better than The Burning, but at least it has the good grace to not to be unrelentingly boring. Perhaps the barometer of how truly terrible this film is can be illustrated by the one recognizable actor in the cast. Halloween = Jamie Lee Curtis , Nightmare on Elm Street = Johnny Depp , Friday the 13th = Kevin Bacon, The Burning = Jason Alexander.
Make of it what you will.
Written by Ryan Venson
So finishes my triumvirate of early 80s slasher reviews. If you missed one, you can start here with my take on Friday the 13th, and here for my take on the original Halloween. I know, not very timely....
Starring: Frank Langella, Robot Directed by: Jake Schreier
I’m not a big fan of movies about old people. I’ve never been one to sit down and watch On Golden Pond, I wasn’t rushing out to see The Bucket List. Hell, I’ve never even seen Cocoon, and it has Steve Guttenberg in it!
I guess, maybe, when I become a senior citizen and start to have paralyzing depression while ruminating about lost loved ones or my usefulness in society, those sorts of films might draw me in. At my current age they just don’t have a lot of appeal to me.
So it was on a whim I went to see Robot & Frank, a film set in the near future about a senior citizen, Frank (Frank Langella), with Alzheimer’s who gets a robot caretaker known simply as Robot (voiced by Peter Sarsgaard).
Frank and his wife are divorced but they have two children, Madison (Liv Tyler), who is off with a Peace Corps-type group trying to save the world one third world country at a time, and Hunter (James Marsden), who seems a bit more pragmatic. Madison constantly harangues her older (or possibly younger…it’s completely irrelevant) brother to make sure he keeps an eye on their father.
Hunter is at his wit’s end with dear old dad. Sometimes Frank remembers Hunter, sometimes he doesn’t. On top of that, it’s a five hour drive from Hunter’s to Frank’s, and Hunter has his own life as an attorney with a wife and children. He feels he has two choices: Put Frank in a home or get him a robot caretaker to help take care of him.
While this seems like the perfect set-up for the exact same sort of melodramatic nonsense I currently have no stomach for – ah, poor Frank, confused and alone, finally finds a friend in a mechanical companion – this movie comes with an interesting twist. See, Frank is an ex-convict and former cat burglar. While he is at first cold towards the robot, he soon warms up when he hatches a plan to pull off one more robbery with the help of his automated companion.
This is, primarily, why I enjoyed Robot & Frank. There is such an obvious, and easy, tearjerker to make here, a film about a lonely, sick man who can only find solace in the one person that truly understands him…and he happens to not be a person at all. But, by and large, the filmmakers stray away from that angle, instead creating a sort of lo-fi buddy comedy.
This isn’t to say there isn’t some melancholy in the film, and I wouldn’t expect it be devoid of emotion, as it does deal with a serious illness, but these aspects are dealt with naturally. Reflected subtly in the way Frank deals with both his robot and his family members, as well as the world around him. It isn’t rammed down our throats with withering shots of family members weeping over forever forgotten memories.
Every aspect of the film doesn’t work perfectly. In particular, one of Frank’s marks, Jake (Jeremy Strong) gets suspicious of Frank and has local constable Rowlings (Jeremy Sisto) check him out. While the original introduction of Jake makes for some rich humor – Jake’s rich, uber-hipster-ish demeanor juxtaposing wildly with Frank’s gruff, old school ex-convict personality – it eventually devolves in to a sort of slapstick keystone cops routine while the duo try and catch Frank red-handed.
Still, the film is one worth seeing if it comes your way. It’s heartfelt but never cloying, and while the idea of conceivably ever having to deal with as debilitating a disease as Alzheimer’s may have you shedding a few tears, the film never panders for them. It mixes humor and grief without employing the sledge hammer, and is the better for it.
Written by Ryan Venson
Starring: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Maria Conchita Alonso, Richard Dawson Directed by: Paul Michael Glaser
Since my wife has taken up movie reviewing, she has been a lot more open to watching films I recommend. Accordingly, I have spent the last few months trying to cram as many pieces of cinema down her throat as possible. This has, by pure coincidence, translated in to a glut of late-80s/early-90s drivel. This trend started when I decided I wanted to watch The Running Man. The real reason for this was to celebrate the life/mourn the passing of one Mr. Richard Dawson.
My sole familiarity of Mr. Dawson’s oeuvre lay completely in his work on Family Feud and the Match Game. I had never (and have still never) in my entire life seen an episode of Hogan’s Heroes. I don’t think it would be any stretch to say, at the time of The Running Man’s release, I wasn’t even aware the show Hogan’s Heroes existed. Believe it or not, at 10 years old, situation comedies about World War II just didn’t appeal to me.
But a full-length live-action movie pitting Arnold Schwarzenegger against a bevy of comic book-like supervillians in brawls to the death? Aces.
Arnold plays Ben Richards, a man framed and wrongly convicted of the massacre of a group of food rioters. Apparently, by 2017 America will be a totalitarian police state, and they don’t like spreading the wealth. Obama better get on some oppressive legislation, because we are WAY behind schedule on that shit.
The film starts with Richards busting out of a labor camp with a couple of fellow jail birds, Laughlin and Weiss (Yaphett Koto and Marvin McIntyre). They all head down to the local “Resistance” camp (you can’t have a proper authoritarian government without some easy to identify malcontents). Laughlin and Weiss join the resistance movement and Richards heads to meet his brother, who he claims can get him out of the country.
When he reaches his brother’s apartment, however, he finds it inhabited by our fiery/sexy/Latin female lead, Amber Mendez (Maria Conchita Alonso). In an attempt to stay his course, Richards kidnaps Amber and forces her to buy him a plane ticket, “disguising” himself brilliantly in a Hawaiian t-shirt and a pair of sunglasses. Oh, and a Panama Jack hat. Ah, a future totalitarian police state where a man convicted of massacring 1,500 innocent food rioters and escaping from prison can don an ugly shirt and get on a plane unhindered. To the future!
Unfortunately for Richards he didn’t have the foresight to think that, once in the airport, his hostage may do something like scream, “Hey, police, help!” Which is exactly what occurs.
Instead of sending Richards back in to a forced labor camp, they send him to Damon Killian (Richard Dawson) who hosts a “game show” where ex-cons are thrown in to an underground gauntlet and unceasingly harangued by the aforementioned supervillians called “stalkers.” If they win they get their freedom, if they lose, well, they’re dead.
Of course it wouldn’t be any fun if it was just Richards running through the gauntlet, so Killian surprises Richards by throwing in his buddies Laughlin and Weiss, and throws Amber in for good measure under the guise that she was helping him escape.
The Running Man, which is based on a Stephen King short I have never read and, from what I’ve heard, based VERY loosely, is pure, unadulterated cheese. Arnie kills the stalkers and slings one-liners like it’s his job (which, I guess, it is). For example, after cutting a man in half with a chainsaw he proclaims “He had to split!”
Classic.
There’s a sub plot about shutting down the oppressive government by finding their 24-hour forced “newsfeed uplink.” Which, of course, they have in plain site on the gaming grounds where they shove in convicted felons once a week. What a great spot to hide the brainwashing mechanism by which you control the people. Really, the whole sub plot is forced, only included because it gives the protagonists something heroic to work towards. Heroes can only perpetrate so much mindless violence and still be heroes.
It seems weird that a game show host should be the face of a totalitarian government, but that’s pretty much how they paint it here. I mean, the guy has to make money right? Regardless, Dawson plays a smug, smarmy arrogant character. I remember both then, and now, being surprised at how well he pulls the character off. I had just assumed he was hired because he was also, in real life, a game show host. But, then again, I’ve watched enough episodes of Family Feud to know the man did have a self-assured, in-your-face sense of humor. Fine piece of casting.
The movie holds up pretty well. It’s ridiculous and cheesy, but it’s FUN, like a lot of Schwarzenegger’s films. The end is a little overly-dramatic; you would think they destroyed the totalitarian government and reinstated democracy, but all they really did was shut down a game show. I’m not sure that reverses years of oppressive government but, then again, they did also shut down that pesky news feed!
I considered downloading and reviewing the Commodore 64 version of The Running Man, but I’ve never really stumbled upon a really user-friendly C64 emulator. So if you want you can watch the longplay here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DUtlEyp5_U
Trust me, it’s awesome.
Written by Ryan Venson