A Thief For the Road
Issue #6
There is no theme this week, FilmRunners! I want to extend a huge thanks to Jill, for breaking the ice and being my first guest contributor. I couldn’t have quite figured out how to organize guest contributors without her. Continuing that trend of guests, Abhinav Yerramreddy from the AWH Film Reviews is contributing this week. A quick intro from Abhinav:
Hey everyone! I’m excited to share a little about AWH Film Reviews, my Substack, where I dive deep into cinema—reviewing new films on a weekly basis. Film Criticism is a dying brand and I aim to resuscitate it by offering film-literate takes on the latest films with in-depth explorations. Bottom line is my approach is rooted in a love for film as both an art form and a cultural reflection, where I use this platform to post thoughtful reviews, opinion pieces, and curated lists.
Again, a big thanks for Abhinav for agreeing to do this! I’m excited about his pick and upcoming reviews. You can subscribe to AWH Films here:
And if you haven’t subscribed to FilmRunner yet, you can do so here:
Abhinav Pick: Two for the Road (1967)
Synopsis
A couple in the south of France non-sequentially spin down the highways of infidelity in their troubled ten-year marriage. IMDB
Director
Runtime
1 hour and 51 minutes.
Starring
Audrey Hepburn, Albert Finney, Eleanor Bron
Trailer
Why
I'm writing about Stanley Donen’s Two for the Road because of my love for classic Hollywood, especially MGM musicals and stars like Audrey Hepburn. Known for Singin’ in the Rain and Funny Face, Donen built a remarkable career but wasn’t afraid to evolve. By the mid-1960s, audiences were disenchanted with traditional Hollywood films, and studios struggled to compete with television. Sensing this shift, Donen embraced the fresh, experimental style of European cinema, particularly the French New Wave. Two for the Road blends old Hollywood’s romance and star power with bold, modern storytelling, capturing a pivotal moment of change in American film.
Jake’s Pick: Thief (1981)
Synopsis
After years in prison, ace safe-cracker Frank owns a car dealership and a cocktail lounge, which are fronts for high-stakes jewelry heists. He wants to complete one last big heist for the Mob before he goes straight. IMDB
Director
Starring
James Caan, Tuesday Weld, Willie Nelson
Runtime
2 hours and 3 minutes.
Trailer
Why
For the ardent reader of FilmRunner (there is at least one!), you may have noticed that this is the second film selected from 1981, despite there only being a few issues released so far. While I haven’t done any formal research on other years, I’m inclined to believe 1981 is one of the strongest years in film. It’s wild how many great movies came out that year. It stands to reason that this won’t be the last film featured from 1981.
Directed by Michael Mann, Thief is tied for the number two spot among his top films on Letterboxd, with Heat (1995) taking the number one spot (deservedly so). Mann’s trademark style often involves bold lighting and color choices, especially in nighttime scenes. He’s a pioneer of technical realism, frequently employing cast and crew who have real-life experience relevant to the story. For instance, John Santucci, who plays Urizzi, was once a jewel thief, and Dennis Farina was a former police detective.
Thief stars James Caan, Tuesday Weld, and the late, great Willie Nelson. From everything I’ve written so far, it should be obvious that I’m on the path to becoming a movie buff, though I’m not quite there yet. As such, I was pleasantly surprised to learn Willie Nelson had acted and can’t wait to check out his performance. The film is notable launched the careers of several actors (notably Farina and Jim Belushi)
This film came onto my radar about a year ago when I was researching movies featuring heists and capers. I didn’t have time to watch it then, so I added it to my watch list. I’ve been looking for an excuse to finally see it, and when Abhinav picked Two for the Road, Thief seemed like the perfect balance against it.
🎥 Reviews of Last Week's Picks
Caution, there may be spoilers.
It’s What’s Inside (2024)
Picked By
Jill
Synopsis
A group of friends gather for a pre-wedding party that descends into an existential nightmare when an estranged friend arrives with a mysterious game that awakens long-hidden secrets, desires and grudges. IMDB
Director
Starring
Brittany O'Grady, James Morosini, Gavin Leatherwood
Runtime
1 hour and 43 minutes.
Trailer
Jill’s Review
It’s What’s Inside was a fun little movie that didn’t make me think too much about motivations or potential twists as the story unfolded. While I thought the premise was a bit of a unique take on my usual “made-for-TV horror” type picks, I felt like I could see what was coming a mile away, and it was reminiscent of the many other movies that play on games gone wrong. However, there was still some joy to be found in finding out the specifics of how these unlikable characters would complicate things further for themselves, and I could even see myself being peer-pressured into participating in a scenario like this myself.
I really liked the cinematography and editing in this film, especially how they showcased the characters while they were playing the game, and I thought the pace and coloring choices really contributed to the party vibes. With the lack of surprises for me in the story, I think these are the elements that really kept me locked in and interested the entire time.
Overall, I’d call this a worthwhile watch if you’re looking to fill an evening, and a cool idea for a party game if you’re tech-savvy and beer pong is feeling a little stale.
Jake’s Review
⭐⭐⭐✨ (three and a half stars)
This was a pleasant surprise. I went in thinking the idea looked interesting, but wrongly assumed this was going to be a bit straight-to-video quality. This feature ended up simultaneously benefiting and suffering from an ambitious concept and small budget. I was between three stars and three and a half, but chose to round up.
The premise of the film, if you haven’t seen the trailer, is that an old friend shows up with an analog-looking device that swaps bodies between whoever is connected to it. Jardin takes a soft-science approach, and it is definitely the right move. It keeps the film from getting too complicated and creates a stronger overall aesthetic. However, it does place a heavy burden on the cast to act out multiple roles and personalities. They did a great job, but I don’t think we got any truly standout performances because of it. I don’t think there was any other way to handle this concept, but it remains a significant challenge for the film. I thought Brittany O’Grady was great in The White Lotus, but she didn’t really get a chance to shine in It’s What’s Inside.
What they achieved with this budget, though, is fantastic, and I love the recent trend in horror to do more with less. Films like X and Pearl also come to mind. I’m a strong believer that restrictions breed creativity, and I felt a real loss when small- and mid-budget features were sidelined in favor of larger productions. With films like The Brutalist (granted, it still has four times the budget of this one), I hope we are entering a revival period for smaller budgets.
Where this film suffers, though, is none of the characters are likeable in the least. I couldn’t quite place what I felt was lacking in the film and after some discussions with friends, I think this was it. I felt like the cinematography and editing could have been slightly better, but that wasn’t what held this film back.
In summary, this film is not perfect, and I found it didn’t quite measure up to other similarly budgeted projects I’ve enjoyed. Still, it remains a lot of fun to watch, and at an hour and forty-three minutes, it’s not a huge commitment. It’s worth checking out.
Wallace & Gromit: A Vengeance Most Fowl (2025)
Picked By
Jake
Synopsis
Gromit's concerned that Wallace has become over-dependent on his inventions, which proves justified when Wallace invents a "smart gnome" that seems to develop a mind of its own. IMDB
Director
Nick Park and Merlin Crossingham
Starring
Ben Whitehead, Peter Kay, Lauren Patel
Runtime
1 hour and 22 minutes.
Trailer
Jill’s Review
I had two big thoughts watching this movie:
Poor Gromit (I think I might empathize too hard sometimes, because I spent a good chunk of the movie just feeling sad for him and his life)
Where can I get more Feathers McGraw?
As for the story, I do think it was effective in the message it was trying to portray about technology. As an inventor, Wallace finds great joy in automating quite literally every task of the day and believes others would invariably find joy in this as well. This sentiment causes him to invent a gardening gnome to assist Gromit, and antics ensue. I found this very relatable because, while I love a good convenience, I think there is a lot of value in considering what we might be giving up when we go for convenience every time. I work in a non-tech industry, and the call for modernization without consideration has sometimes led us in a direction that only makes things harder. You know what Jeff Goldblum says:
“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”
This is my first Wallace and Gromit film, and I think it had it all: character and relationship development, a relevant and relatable story, a villain you can’t help but want more of, and an ending you can get choked up at. I’ve already been looking up where I can find the others.
Jake’s Review
⭐⭐⭐⭐ (four stars)
This was the palate cleanser I craved, and it’s revived my excitement for the entire franchise. Everything about it feels so charming and clever. I feel like I could rewatch it a couple of times to catch some of the jokes I might have missed. Feathers McGraw is such a great villain, and I found myself cracking up at all of his gags. It’s no surprise then, that McGraw has been gaining traction as a tattoo, and in fairness, that is a great idea.
As a software developer who also enjoys gardening, I found myself relating to both Wallace and Gromit at different points. Despite my career path, I identified more with Gromit. It serves as a great cautionary tale against automating too much of your life and relying on technology that you can’t fully understand by design. Automating the boring stuff is fine, but care must be taken not to lose sight of what truly brings joy to you and others. I guess the real challenge lies in deciding what actually qualifies as boring.
The story itself was great; I love how self-contained and silly it was. The same goes for the characters. The jokes were great, and even if they weren’t necessarily original, the execution was perfect. This has been a strong year for animated features, and with films such as Flow and Memoir of a Snail getting critical acclaim, I think we can look forward to more to come.
🖋 Closing Note
Thanks for reading!
For more content about films across different mediums, please check out The First Picture House.
If you enjoyed this and haven’t subscribed yet, please consider subscribing below. For those who have subscribed, we’ll see you in two weeks with our thoughts on this week’s picks and some fresh recommendations!
 | A guest post by
|