Desperate to save his sick daughter, working-class Ben Richards is convinced by The Running Man's charming but ruthless producer to enter the deadly competition game as a last resort. But Ben's defiance, instincts, and grit turn him into an unexpected fan favorite — and a threat to the entire system. As ratings skyrocket, so does the danger, and Ben must outwit not just the Hunters, but a nation addicted to watching him fall.
FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ movieswetextedabout.com/the-running-man-movie-review-a-lot-of-running-for-an-underwhelming-finish-line/
"The Running Man falls short of the potential that Edgar Wright and the source material suggested, though it's an efficient vehicle for the talent and charisma of Glen Powell and presents themes that could and should be incisive.
Its narrative repetition, unnecessary exposure of its messages, and unsatisfactory ending prevent it from becoming a memorable dystopian thriller. It's competent and perfectly acceptable entertainment, but it lacks the impact and sig…
With his young daughter in need of some basic medication that he and his wife cannot afford, “Richards” (Glen Powell) sets off to enrol in the most taxing of television game shows. If he can stay alive for thirty days, he will win a gazillion new dollars and be able to live, with his family, like a king. Of course, he learns fairly quickly that this will never be a fair fight as the show’s boss “Killian” (Josh Brolin) makes quite clear. This is going to be brutal stuff, with the population actively encouraged to report his whereabouts for a cash bonus, so the goons or the “hunters” can come an…
Pretty fun and entertaining remake/re-adaptation that features a fine performance from Glen Powell alongside solid action scenes. Josh Brolin's shear presence made home quite good even if it's a thinly written character and one who doesn't have a ton of screen time. Nothing groundbreaking but still worth checking out. **3.75/5**
There's often a very good reason why they say a film is "adapted" from a literary work.
Such was the case with the 1988 film, "Running Man". Ably adapted from Stephen Kings literary work, it condensed a much longer tale, into a manageable and entertaining package.
Regrettably, what has been repeatedly touted as an advantage, that is the new film, following the literary work of King more closely, is anything but. This is an overly long, at times thoroughly boring film, that's lacking in both pace and direction. Worse still, its narrative is devoid of depth and wit, leaving characters w…
### **Review: *The Running Man (2025)***
**Score: 7/10**
Comparing any remake to the 1987 Arnold Schwarzenegger classic is a brutal contest. The original is a beloved, muscle-bound, high-camp satire of 80s media and authoritarianism, where the puns are as thick as the biceps. The 2025 adaptation wisely doesn't try to be that. It takes Stephen King's (writing as Richard Bachman) original dystopian novel and the core concept of a deadly game show—where convicts run for their lives while being hunted by celebrity "Stalkers"—and grafts it onto a sleek, modern framework. The result is a surpr…
Oh dude...end it at the plane crash. The man who runs is good at running. Nice skill set like that guy who transports things. Lots of movers these days. Should have been called Marathon Man.
No one asked for this, no one wanted this.... and like so many other movies that no one asked for or wanted, they gave it to us anyway....
.... and they added political lectures to it, but at least they didn't race and gender swap the lead. Even then, it's an insult to the original, it's an insult to the source material, it's an insult to the intelligence.
Technically proficient, but soulless
Unlike its original from 1987 this movie lacks the messaging and heart that made the first one more interesting. It is far less believable than the hyper-campy 80's classic. Where the first iteration has characters, memorable moments and a story worth engaging in, this version is bland, has only one character that you actually get to know, and he has no arc worth mentioning. There is a great sense of bland inevitability to the whole thing, and the ending only solidifies it, whereas the 1987 version gives you more to think about.
While this is not a bad …
What a shitshow. In the first half hour I thought it might at least be fun, but the longer it went on the more stupid it got. This movie doesn't even know what story it wants to tell or which genre it wants to be. Dystopia? Comedy? A kind of Crank/Gamer/Scott Pilgrim Mix-up? It really feels like they just threw a bit of everything good into a mixing bowl and made the worst tasting pasta sauce ever. You know, the 80s had a lot of weird and bad told movies but at least they tried. They made an effort. They knew how to use sarcasm in the right way, how to build up drama and make it work to combin…
