Running Time

It seems obvious to me that the creators of this film realized early on that they were working with script that is cliche, predictable and wholly uninteresting. So, instead of trying to make the story itself interesting, they decided to shoot it in what they must have believed to be an interesting way. Long takes, few cuts, real time, real mess.

These sort of films may be attention grabbing from an experimental veiwpoint, but don't offer much in the way of good storytelling. Movies are traditionally cut and edited the way they are for a very good reason...it works. While some may consider this style of filmmaking challenging and artistic, I think lazy is more on point: strap a steadicam operator with a rig, have him run around following the action for an ungodly amount of time and it only takes you two days to edit, wow!

The negative effects of shooting a film in such a way far outweigh the possible benefits. Sickening camera shifts (think Blair Witch), stagnant camera angles, and uneven acting performances are all inevitable results. Plus, it seems to me that the value of such extended takes come as a result of their scarcity. P.T. Anderson understands this, and while he almost always incorporates a long take or two in his films, they serve as juxtapose the more traditional shooting style and, are therefore interesting.

While "Running Time" may be a fascinating filmmaking exercise, this bizarre and ineffective shooting style, when combined with a poorly written script make this movie practically unwatchable and certainly unenjoyable. It appears as if the creator of this film was making it solely for himself and not for a viewing audience, which is fine, but these sort of pieces are better suited for film school projects than feature film releases.

Made in the same all-in-one-take method that Hitchcock (who is thanked in the end credits) created for ROPE, RUNNING TIME is actually more inventive on some levels. Hitchcock shot his film on a stage at Warner Bros., but Becker's is made out in the streets of Los Angeles. Granted, Hitchcock didn't have the highly mobile, lightweight camera equipment available to Becker, but it couldn't have been easy shooting RUNNING TIME (amusing, punning title) from moving cars and on Los Angeles streets.

The script is taut and well-written, and occasionally quite amusing as the hold-up men squabble amongst themselves during the robbery. The movie is also unexpectedly romantic in a tough, ultra-film-noir manner (the hero and heroine have sex before they recognize each other from high school).

Becker also varies the style impressively at times, from a rock-steady, documentary-style approach at the beginning, to a more surrealistic sequence during the robbery, as the camera shifts wildly from one perspective to another.

The film didn't have much theatrical distribution, and is evidently available on video only from the director, but video stores should stock it. This is one of those movies whose reputation will increase in the years to come.

Recently released convict Bruce Campbell decides to pull a daring heist with a small group of losers. Their objective is to steal money that is used by the prison for laundry services. Campbell, who learned of this while working the laundry room, is the would-be mastermind of the poorly planned job. Also along for the ride is an old high school love (Anita Barone) that Campbell may still have deep feelings for. "Running Time" was supposedly shot in one continuous take. I really do not believe this could have been made that way looking at the various locations throughout the Los Angeles area that were used. With that said, "Running Time" starts off very well but then just kind of drags its feet as the second half progresses. Campbell, arguably doing the best work of his career, steals the show and Barone's late appearance adds an interesting wrinkle that probably was not needed. Like the film itself, Campbell and Barone look great in this black-and-white product. Ultimately though the substance is lacking and "Running Time" likely would have been better as a short film than a cinematic feature. Highly interesting to an extent, but still not quite a touchdown. 2.5 out of 5 stars.

Very enjoyable, oddball little shortie. When Carl got out of the pen after five years for theft, he and his idiotic best friend went directly into another heist. From the very start nothing went anywhere except the wrong way for these bungling losers. These stupids even hired a junkie as the getaway driver. Gad! When this caper went totally awry I thought Carl and his buddy should have had a lot more trouble getting away from the crime scene. They merely ran down pretty much deserted streets with no one chasing them even though three shooters were only seconds behind at one point. Although fun to watch the entire thing was just too unbelievable; no way these jackasses could have escaped the area without giving themselves away. Anita Barone was fine as the broken hearted hooker who badly needed to put her trust in someone.

It's an idea with the potential to go wrong, but Hitchcock made it work with Rope, and now Josh Becker has done the same with Running Time; a film with the word 'cult' written all over it! The fact that this film is shot in black and white makes it stand out somewhat from the crowd of nineties films, but it's the way that it's filmed that is Running Time's claim to fame. Becker shoots the film in one continuous shot that follows around lead character Carl through one day. This idea worked brilliantly for Hitchcock, but I was worried that it might not work so well for a movie about a heist - but it really couldn't have worked better! As mentioned, the plot follows Carl Metushka - a man newly released from prison. He meets up with his buddy, and it soon becomes apparent that Carl hasn't decided to stay away from the life of crime. No, he and his friend have a heist planned and we watch as they pick up a couple of people needed for the heist, and proceed to do the actual robbery...but you can't expect a plan like this to go off without a hitch.

The fact that Running Time is filmed in one continuous shot means that it's very easy to get into. This is complimented by the running time, which is extremely short at just sixty five minutes, and means that the film really doesn't have time to get boring. Becker keeps things interesting with a constant flow of action, and some rather amusing dialogue, which ensures that the film constantly makes for fun viewing. One of my major reasons for seeing this film was because of the presence of B-movie maestro Bruce Campbell. Campbell has a lot of charisma, and this shines through excellently in this film. Campbell is a very handsome man, and Becker makes good use of that fact with his role here. The rest of the cast are secondary to Campbell, but good use is made of all of them, and they all give realistic performances. The film is a little preposterous as certain things, the ending especially, are a little silly -but it really doesn't matter as Josh Becker's experiment is a huge success and overall, I can't not recommend that everyone takes the time to track Running Time down!