Hit and Runway

Summary:

A macho Italian guy takes a screenwriting class. By the strangest of those my-cousin-knows-your-brother's-agent quirks, a big Hollywood star overhears one of his ideas, and wants to see a script. Only one problem. Macho Guy has no script. Make that two problems. He has no scriptwriting ability, either. The idea was all he had. But he doesn't want to let such an opportunity pass, so he ends up partnering with an aspiring playwright, who is a nebbishy, gay Jewish intellectual. The comedy, such as it is, derives from their Odd Couple pairing. The film they are writing, also called Hit and Runway, is about an undercover NYPD cop whose cover story has him working as a male fashion model. (That's pretty similar to the Sandra Bullock movie about the FBI agent who goes undercover as a beauty queen, but this script was written before Miss Congeniality came out.)

More than anything else, Hit and Runway is a buddy picture. It's not so much about the movie they are writing as about their ability to understand and appreciate each other better, and eventually to draw upon their own real experiences in their script development.

DVD info from Amazon.

widescreen letterboxed 1.85:1
no meaningful features

The premise is shopworn ("Kiss Me Guido" trod much of the same ground, for example), the characters are stereotyped by their ethnicity and sexual preferences, and the jokes are not very good. It is kind of a "biz" picture, filled with self-conscious references and homages to other films, as well as plenty of insider humor about the film and theater businesses. I think they were aiming for a Woody Allen level of humor and insight, but ended up closer to Woody Harrelson. On the other hand, it isn't a mean spirited film. It does let all the characters breathe a bit, and the script has its moments.

It draws some comparisons to The Odd Couple in its self-promotion on the box, but it has a long way to go to equal the comic timing of that TV classic. The writer/director shows some promise as a writer, but is not really ready to wear the director cap at this time. The pacing, editing, and photography are at a primitive sub-TV level.

The Critics Vote

filmcritic.com 2/5

Rotten Tomatoes summary. 32% positive.

The People Vote ...

IMDB summary. IMDb voters score it 6.5/10

with their dollars: it grossed $81,000.

IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this film is a C-. It's about as good as the plot description sounds to you. If it is your kind of film, it's watchable.