From: blake7@herahera.cc.bellcore.com (berardinelli,james)
Subject: REVIEW: NOWHERE TO RUN
Reply-To: blake7@herahera.cc.bellcore.com (berardinelli,james)
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:29:23 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01701
Keywords: author=Berardinelli

				 NOWHERE TO RUN
		       A film review by James Berardinelli
			Copyright 1993 James Berardinelli

Running Length:  1:34
Rated:  R (Violence, language, nudity)

Starring:  Jean-Claude Van Damme, Rosanna Arquette, Kieran Culkin,
	Ted Levine, Joss Ackland
Director:  Robert Harmon
Producers:  Craig Baumgarten and Gary Adelson
Screenplay:  Joe Eszterhas, Leslie Bohem, and Randy Feldman
Music:  Mark Isham
Released by Columbia Pictures

     Jean-Claude Van Damme plays Sam, an escaped convict on the run from
the law who takes refuge on the land of a pretty, debt-stricken widow by
the name of Clydie (Rosanna Arquette).  Clydie's son Mookie (Kieran
Culkin) discovers Sam and a tentative friendship begins.  Meanwhile, a
land developer (Joss Ackland) and his henchman (Ted Levine) plot to
drive Clydie off her land so that they can use it as part of their new
project.  When magnanimous offers to buy the land fail, the pair resort
to terror, but Sam's presence creates some unexpected complications.

     I suppose I should give NOWHERE TO RUN credit in a couple of areas.
In the first place, it legitimately attempts to develop the characters.
There are numerous scenes whose entire purpose is to build the various
relation- ships that form the linchpin of the film:  Sam and Clydie;
Sam, Mookie, and Bre (Mookie's sister); and Mookie, Bre, Clydie.
Unfortunately, few of these scenes work, mainly because of a too-obvious
reliance upon formulas, not only for setup, but dialogue as well.  There
are a lot of cliches floating around in NOWHERE TO RUN, and every facet
of the storyline is predictable.

     Secondly, the film takes a little chance in giving Van Damme's
character a less-than-sterling background.  He's a convicted criminal.
This is an unusual move for a picture of this type, so, to minimize its
impact, the script makes sure that the viewer realizes what a nice guy
Sam is.  Sure, he may have made a mistake in the past, but underneath,
he has a heart of gold.

     Finally, there's the ending, which, at least in part, is
refreshingly contrary to expectations.  That's not to say that it's a
tremendously original finale, but at least something about it is a
little different.

     Surprisingly, there isn't much action in NOWHERE TO RUN, at least
in comparison to Van Damme's previous films, and this is one of the
reasons why the movie misses its mark.  Except for a few short bursts
here and there and one extended scene during the climax, the film is
mostly talk.  And since Van Damme's range as a dramatic actor is
marginal at best, this is a problem.

     It's apparent that NOWHERE TO RUN's best asset is Rosanna Arquette,
who puts spirit and energy into a fetching portrayal of Clydie.  Not
only is she pleasing to the eyes (a common trait of women in action
films), but she can act circles around anyone else in the cast, except
perhaps Joss Ackland, but he's on hand just to pick up a paycheck.  Ms.
Arquette saves more than her share of scenes.  Entirely due to her
performance, there's a flicker of chemistry between the two main
characters.

     The most serious flaw of NOWHERE TO RUN is that in trying to do too
much, it succeeds at too little.  Action fans will be disappointed by
the amount of talk and the lack of fights.  When there is action,
nothing new, spectacular, or inventive is tried.  Drama lovers (few of
whom are likely to venture into a theater showing this film due to the
reputation of its star) will have a hard time swallowing all the
banalities.  At least those with allegiance to Arquette and Van Damme
will enjoy themselves.  Both performers get an opportunity to take off
their clothes (predictably, Van Damme's nude scene is less revealing).

     NOWHERE TO RUN isn't a complete waste of time, nor is it terminally
boring, but, as action/adventure pictures go, this one is closer to the
bottom end of the scale than the top.

                        Rating:  6.1 (C, **)


- James Berardinelli (blake7@cc.bellcore.com)

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews