Film Review: Runner Runner

RUNNER, RUNNER




Copyright © 2012 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. All rights reserved. 
RUNNER, RUNNER Motion Picture Copyright © 2012 Regency Entertainment (USA), Inc. and Monarchy Enterprises S.a.r.l. All rights reserved. Not for sale or duplication.
RUNNER, RUNNER Copyright © 2012 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. All rights reserved. RUNNER, RUNNER Motion Picture Copyright © 2012 Regency Entertainment (USA), Inc. and Monarchy Enterprises S.a.r.l. All rights reserved. Not for sale or duplication.

1/5 Stars

“Runner Runner” takes the same base as “The Social Network”: an Ivy League guy too smart for his own good finds a way to make a lot of money and gets shut down by his school. The film manages to turn what theoretically could have been an exciting, absurdist thriller (or at least a fun gambling romp à la “21”) into a tasteless drama.

Justin Timberlake stars as Richie Furst, a Princeton graduate student who directs students and professors to gambling websites for money. A dean at the university finds out and orders Richie to stop encouraging students to gamble with a cliché-riddled speech reminiscent of the chastising Reverend Moore in “Footloose.” Obviously, the next logical step for Richie is to take all the money from his bank account and use his impressive gambling skills to win enough to complete his master’s degree. But he gets greedy and his winning streak turns sour. Richie gets pissed off, and when Richie gets pissed off, he does statistics. His research proves that the game he played was rigged, so he jets off to Costa Rica to track down Ivan Block (Ben Affleck), the mogul who runs almost all the world’s online poker sites. All this unfolds in about 10 minutes.

When Richie confronts Ivan about his lost tuition, Ivan inexplicably offers him a job with his questionably legal company, apparently impressed by his guts and ingenuity. Timberlake plays Richie as alternatively too-cool-for-school and eager beaver. One minute all he wants to do is chill on a yacht and the next he excitedly spouts out statistical jargon. Affleck is an apathetic villain. I’m unsure whether he was trying to play ‘hard to read’ or if he was genuinely disinterested in acting in the film. In what could have been a tense and disturbing scene, Ivan halfheartedly coats two men in chicken fat and kicks them into crocodile-infested waters. The gap between Timberlake’s and Affleck’s energies is too vast for them to work cohesively in the film.

There are also women in this movie—a lot of women. They walk around, lounge around or get passed around, mostly silent and always scantily clad. One of the women is played by Gemma Arterton. I honestly don’t remember her character’s name. She has more screen time than the rest and wears slightly more clothing. That makes her a main character by default, albeit one with no development or story arc of her own.

I was also disappointed by the miniscule role of Ben Schwartz (Parks and Recreation’s Jean-Ralphio Saperstein) as Richie’s roommate. He was there solely to fill the Andrew Garfield role in "The Social Network": the one who worries Richie is pushing things too far and is subsequently ignored and forgotten, even when Richie invites all his buddies down to party with him in Costa Rica.

The movie could have benefited from better pacing. The most interesting plot points all occur in the whirlwind beginning scenes of the film, which are underscored with spinning, confusion-generating shots. But never fear: Justin Timberlake’s narration is here to keep the audience from getting too lost. The establishing action sets up a ‘who’s playing who?’ long con, a drawn-out series of power plays by Richie and Ivan. The film fails to push on the more interesting aspects of the drama, such as Richie’s relationship with his gambling-addicted father and his interaction with the FBI.

“Runner Runner” is an utterly confusing film. There’s really no moral conclusion except that you have permission to be a bad guy as long as you’re not the worst guy. The audience is presented with a double message about gambling and risk-taking: one that “everyone gets a fair chance” and another that “the house always wins.” It’s also unclear whether we’re even supposed to like Richie. There’s something to be said for ambiguity, but the obscurity in “Runner Runner” is derived from bad writing and a lack of clarity rather than from any actual ethical dilemma.

Discussion

Share and discuss “Film Review: Runner Runner” on social media.