The Running Man

People might say that it's a good popcorn movie, but I gotta say that a good popcorn movie is still a good movie. Glen has done a great job on acting.

As you know, the story is from Stephen King so it has some sort of guarantee that the plot wasn't gonna be that bad. In fact, i view that it is quite good even though there is a lack of depth in some part. Still, for a two hour movie, it has done a pretty great job on capturing the story. Although in some scenes, it's quite prolonging.

This movie is surely fulfilling the criteria of whatever action movie should have. There's an excitement as it will make you rooting for the runners. Some scenes may be predictable, but it is not easy as it seems. So just go watch it, it won't disappoint you.

I think that most of us have probably all seen the 80s cult classic Running Man starring Arnold and when I heard that this version was going to be closer to the book which I haven't read. I was intrigued, would it be good? Another remake of an Arnold film like Total Recall, is it necessary?

For me personally it delivered and was the 80s action throwback that I was looking for.

Glen Powell stars as Ben Richards, a down and out rebel working pay check to pay check to provide for his family who gets blacklisted and has no other choice but to enter The Running Man due to his child needing medication.

Colman Domingo is great as Bobby T, the host of The Running Man TV Show, hamming it up all the way and working alongside Josh Brolin's Dan Killian (a shady network producer).

The film was well acted, decent special effects and action scenes and you really felt the weight of Powell's character as he tries to evade the hunters on his trail, lead by their illustrious masked leader (played by Lee Pace).

There seems to be a lot of mixed reviews of this and some outright hating it (Nerdrotic, The Critical Drinker). I think where this stems from is it isn't the usual flare from Edgar Wright that we are used to, does that make it a bad film? No, by no means.

All I really wanted was to switch my brain off and be entertained by some cheesy manly action, did I get that, yes.

There was also some political commentary which I found very welcoming about society, the government, deepfakes etc.

I would highly recommend you give this a shot yourself and don't rely on the critics to decide for you if you'd enjoy it or not.

When I heard Edgar was making this movie I watched the original, read the book, and got thoroughly excited for 6 months. I wasn't disappointed, for those who've read the book you'll get a lot more of that classic Richard Bachman (Steven King) classic, but perfectly streamlined and some nice changes.

For those who haven't, throw away the original movie, this isn't that, it's even better! Get to the cinema, watch it. Cracking fun.

Remake of 1987 film and adapted from Stephen King novel, The Running Man sees Ben Richards (Glenn Powell) entering a dangerous game with higher stakes for the sake of his family.

The major reason why this movie had me interested was because of Edgar Wright, who has given amazing flicks year-after-year.

With regards to narrative, it was simple yet was weak in construction. While the first half had some intriguing elements, the second half was sluggish, stretched and lost it's steam, even before reaching the final act. The cast did a decent job in terms of performances. Glen Powell was charismatic and Josh Brolin was evil in his own ways.

Edgar Wright's kinetic flavour isn't quite as present here as it has been on Baby Driver. There are certainly some finely crafted action sequences, however it stretches on for too long. The humour jokes didn't land, in most of the cases. The camera work and strong background score was missing, as we have seen in other movies from the director.

The world felt quite two-dimensional. It was on the precipice of making an interesting point but settled in a elementary commentary. This was a disappointment in terms of leaving an impact.

Overall, The Running Man is an underwhelming flick, given the director's strong filmography, although it has some cool moments.

My Rating : 6/10.

The movie is definitely not a disaster. You're not sitting there thinking "wow, what a trainwreck." The action hits, a few set pieces are genuinely exciting, and technically the movie is solid. But by the time the credits roll, it all feels surprisingly generic, especially considering who directed it.

Edgar Wright is usually a guy with a really recognizable style; very sharp editing, playful visual flair, a real sense of personality. But here it honestly feels like the studio sanded most of that off. The whole thing comes across weirdly safe and standard, like a "we don't want to scare anyone" studio project. If his name wasn't on it, I'm not sure you'd even guess it was him. It feels more like work-for-hire than something he was burning to make.

The good stuff first: when the movie goes into full action mode, it works. The chases and fights are shot clearly, you can tell what's going on, there's some good impact, and it's rarely boring while bullets are flying. The other big positive is Glenn Powell as Ben Richards. He really carries the film. He sells that mix of desperate dad who just wants to save his family and slightly unhinged guy who actually stands a chance in this rigged death game. You do end up wanting him to make it through and at the same time enjoy watching him tear into the hunters and this messed-up system.

The world itself is also cool in theory: a dystopian future where a media mega-corporation basically runs the country, a show called 'The Running Man' where three contestants are turned into public enemies through AI-generated videos and propaganda so the whole world hates them and wants them dead, and they're hunted by both regular citizens and professional killers. If they survive a month, they get a billion dollars and a new life. Ben signs up because his daughter is sick, he got blacklisted from every job for trying to do the right thing, and now he can't even afford basic medicine. The media/propaganda angle is not subtle at all - it's very on-the-nose; but that's fine, the concept can handle being blunt.

On top of that, the tone is all over the place. The world they're showing here really calls for a more serious, heavier approach: poverty, desperation, public executions as entertainment, a father throwing himself into a death show to save his kid... it's dark stuff. But the movie keeps dropping in jokes and light banter. It's not full-on Marvel quip spam, but it's enough to keep undercutting the seriousness. And the problem is, most of the jokes aren't even that funny.

You can also feel the strain of trying to stay closer to the Stephen King book. On paper that's a smart move and it definitely has nothing to do with the cheesy 80s Schwarzenegger version beyond the basic premise. But on screen it sometimes plays like they tried to cram in as many book elements as possible without giving them enough time to breathe. That leads to some bloat, weird pacing, and a general sense of "there's a better, tighter version of this story hiding in here somewhere."

As a straightforward action movie, it's watchable and even pretty fun in parts. You get good action, a strong lead performance, and an interesting world that's at least engaging on a surface level. But if you walk in expecting a new Edgar Wright classic, you're almost guaranteed to walk out disappointed. As a random action flick, it's "okay to good." As an Edgar Wright movie, it's firmly on the weaker end of his filmography. For me, it is entertaining enough for one viewing, but nowhere near as good as it could've been.