Run with the Hunted

Newb (his third resume entry - this his second full length feature film) producer, writer and director John Swab did a decent job in the directing department, but the writing was a mess. I understood the story he was trying to tell, but it had many plot and technical issues, with choppy scenes. Had a seasoned writer made some edits, the story would've been much better told. Cinematography was great, the score decent, and the acting and casting on point, although Michael Pitt's performance and/or character was bland for the most part. Otherwise, not a bad film from a newbie filmmaker. 7/10 from me

I enjoyed this film. It was an independant low budget crime story of youth without consequence. Essentially teens that spent their life robbing and holding up people. It was a life that was an escape for Oscar from his abusive father only later to repeat as the movie jumps forward 15 years. Michael Pitt amazes me with his diverse roles and again creates another character that is far removed from himself. He looks damaged, he looks on edge yet has a strange moral compass and a deep down love for his family and those that he holds dear. Ron Pearlman provides a believable performance although perhaps something that we have seen a few times before...

The story didn't overly have a strong plot or a deeper underlying message and certainly no real consequence for the crimes they were all commiting which may of added an interesting element to the movie but was interesting enough as it progressed to make you invested in the characters and enough action to keep you entertained.

Ending (NO SPOILERS HERE) was odd imo as I would like to have know what happened next, but as the director said its the kind of movie where you can go home and think about it and kinda make your own mind up.

Enjoyable ride none the less.

Ok so I saw the 7.3 score and thought this must be good. 5 minutes into the film I sat thinking this film really isn't looking very good. So I looked at the score table. Have a look yourself and see if it makes any sense, it doesn't. I think somewhere the maths is wrong.

Objectively: Plot holes too numerous to list but a major problem is the casting of the principals, Loux and Oscar. The features of the young actors are dramatically different from the adults but this can be excused in that I imagine that this can be a challenge. What is inexcusable is that Michael Pitt (adult Oscar) has different eye color to Mitchell Paulsen (young Oscar) and Madilyn Kellam (young Loux) has different eye color to Sam Quartin (adult Loux). Subjectively: Film is cast, directed and the script is written by very mediocre talent and by people that do not understand and have not researched the way packs of street kids work and interact together. The scene where Oscar "teaches" prospective tween muggers to commit armed robbery is ludicrous. Young inexperienced kids drawing guns in broad daylight, in the middle of a busy city?! Unrealistic. Adult Oscar does a high level disarming action and disarms and then trains the hand guns on not one but two of the trainees and then berates them for their error. Reasonable, I suppose if they are expected to be able to rob Jason Bourne. So this feeble sophomoric production meanders through its low-grade, implausible plot, with a cast of "street kids" that look more like kids on a field trip from a local prep school than street wise urchins ready to participate in armed robbery.

I hated this movie for showing us negative stuff like mafia, robberies, crime, violence, betrayal, revenge. Only feelings of anger and sadness. Then characters are mixed up and it is unclear who is who. Adult copies of young same characters are looking too different both by look and by character. Then story is unfinished. Too many things disconnected, nonsesnse, unexplained, occured without cause or solution. Very bad experience. Not comfortable to watch at least for people who don't like complex things and negativity (social and emotional).