(If you’re curious, my review process. It’s also pasted at the end of this post. I don’t believe in Rotten Tomatoes. I just believe in me.)
(***all-purpose SPOILER ALERT*** there may be some in this review)
SW SCORE: 37
3.5 out of 5 🐙
(This is what I wrote back in 2003 way back before I had a twitter or wordpress or letterboxd account.)
(so you have to pretend it’s like a time capsule so some of the references are not only their usual lame quality but they are also probably out of date and make no sense anymore)
I had a blast at The Rundown. Forget Vin Diesel, The Rock is the new action superstar. Or at the very least, he’s the one whose picking better scripts. The Rundown hits all the right beats. The fights are original (check out Rocky versus a gang of diminutive Brazilian ass kickers). The laughs are plentiful (check out Rocky again versus a very amorous monkey). The dialogue is fresh, especially for an action flick. Kudos to scribes R.J. Stewart (Major League II) and James Vanderbilt. Vanderbilt, the definition of prolific, has had his first three scripts released as films in 2003 alone. Especially interesting is the recitation of a Dylan Thomas poem over a very dynamic cow stampede. And finally, tight performances by the entire cast (from Seann William Scott to Christopher Walken) and the requisite amount of explosions round out this actioner. Like Pirates of the Caribbean, this is a genre film that satisfies its core audience and rules and manages to be funnier than most purported comedies. And Rosario Dawson is her usual combination of strong acting and sultry screen presence. Peter Berg, actor turned director, has fashioned a very good action movie. Run to The Rundown.
(1) Shark Wrighter (SW) Score: Based on a sum of 5 sub-scores (acting, directing, writing/story, effects: cinematography &/or animation &/or effects, editing) with 1 being terrible and 10 being terrific.
(2) Octopuses (0-5 🐙, with 5 being fantastic and 0 being feces)
(3) Octopuses are my unquantifiable feeling…not that SW score is scientific…but this one is even less so
(4) ++ This optional section includes any incredibly *brilliant observations that don’t fit into simple quantitative slices like the scores and octopuses *(they are likely NOT brilliant)