When the OG version of THE RUNNING MAN hit the theatres 38 years ago I was among the first in line to see it. It pretty much hit all the tick marks my younger self needed at the time–an action thriller starring Arnold Schwarzenegger (who I had just met at 20th Century FOX’s New York headquarters in an elevator not recognizing him because his eyes were hidden by sunglasses and his biceps by an ill-fitting sports jacket), a setting built around a dystopian game show and a tour-de-force casting for Richard Dawson, the recently cancelled and at the time polarizing emcee of the once-ominpotent FAMILY FEUD. While FEUD was in the midst of being retooled for a new host that at one point included the strong possibility of Joe Namath (I’m told those run-throughs were unwatchable) but couldn’t find a buyer despite the desperate attempts of the aging Mark Goodson to find a network and/or syndicator to bite, Dawson had the chance to play fully into his reputation as a, well, difficult talent and proved to be an ideal foil for Schwarzenegger’s Ben Richards, a desperate contestant seeking both reward and retribution. To me, it was pure popcorn delight and eventually a film I sought out every time it would show up on TV, and sustaining for decades as a staple because it’s a roller coaster ride that one can’t help but want to ride over and over again.
So much like so much other familiar IP with a following it was ripe for a revival and today we get Edgar Wright’s version of what Paul Michael Glaser interpreted back in the day on the way to his own reinvention from a one-note TV detective to a thoughtful director. As GIZMODO’s Germain Lussier explained, this film most def falls into the category of re-invention vs. revival or reboot:
The Running Man movie that’s coming to theaters…could not be more different than The Running Man movie you grew up with…The most significant change between the films is why Ben plays Running Man in the first place. In 1987, he was framed for genocide because he refused to kill innocent people. He then plays the game because he’s captured and tries to help his friends. In 2025, Ben volunteers to play the game because he’s trying to help his family and needs the work. The new movie does touch upon some of that corporate evil, but family is simply a more emotionally powerful explanation.
ROGER EBERT.com’s Matt Zoller Seitz also weighed in:
(T)his adaptation of King’s book is dirtier and nastier than the 1987 film version, it’s not much more insightful about the nihilistic emptiness and cruelty of modern life. The more distance you get from it, the more it falls apart.
And THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE’s G. Allen Johnson provided both caveat and commentary that should reset all expectations and definitely did so to mine:
Stephen King’s “The Running Man,” published in 1982, was set in 2025 and imagined the United States as an authoritarian dystopia. Gonna leave that there for a moment.
Wright, the British director who collaborated with Simon Pegg on the Three Flavours Cornetto trilogy (2004’s “Shaun of the Dead,” 2007’s “Hot Fuzz” and 2013’s “The World’s End”) has adapted a more gritty and faithful – but far less fun – film based of the novel King wrote under his occasional pseudonym Richard Bachman.
This version – the second adaptation of a dystopian King novel this fall, after “The Long Walk” – stars Glen Powell, one of the hottest leading men on screen right now. Yet despite his charm and the film’s fealty to King, it still manages to make you want to spend more time with the villains.
This may be where the opportunity for this version lies. Powell is clearly a generational allure; after all, anyone who could be cast as Sydney Sweeney’s romantic lead has as much chance to get Gen Z to the box office now as Ah-nald did then. And his version of Richards is a more endearing iteration apropos to 2025 tastes–Powell plays a married father of a ailing young daughter who is drawn to compete for the prize money–up to $1 billion–to afford medicine and pay his rent; Schwarzenegger was a detached bachelor looking to clear his name. And a lot easier on the eyes–a point THE NEW YORK TIMES’Manohla Dargis couldn’t resist chiming in with:
Nothing if not pleasant to look at, Powell has an appealingly effortless naturalness as a performer, a lightness of body and spirit that makes it easy to like him and root for his characters. He was ideal as the title charmer in Richard Linklater’s blood-tinged romantic comedy “Hit Man,” about a good guy who stumbles into an intrigue… Wright puts the actor through his action-movie paces — Ben burns a lot of calories running and fighting — but the actor does his best work when he taps into the character’s emotions in the quieter scenes.
And just as the title role has been reinvented, the antagonists have been as well. Dawson’s corrupt and villanous emcee, Damon Killian, has effectively been bifurcated, as Dargis further notes:
Wright…is fond of his villains, and he evidently enjoyed conceptualizing and populating the authoritarian realm, with its pyrotechnics, popping color, thuggish minions, decorative beauties and two reliable, nicely matched show boaters: Josh Brolin and Colman Domingo. Brolin plays Dan Killian, the Network overlord, a devourer of people with big teeth and an insatiable smile; Domingo has the equally flashy role of Bobby T, the exuberant host of “The Running Man.” They show up now and again during the game, amid flashbacks, sprints, feints and more characters.
One can’t help but notice that Domingo’s look is flashier, hipper and, yes, more “urban” than Dawson’s, much more aligned with the look of the current FEUD’s host and savior Steve Harvey. After a couple of decades of ratings-challenged revivals that cast a series of comic foils ranging from tragic stand-up standouts Ray Combs and Louie Anderson to sitcom co-stars Richard Karn and John O’Hurley, the show finally found new glory thanks to Harvey (and, to some degree, Nielsen’s revised way to calculate viewing for multiple daily runs). To this day it remains a viable competitor to the much more respected WHEEL OF FORTUNE and JEOPARDY where it counts most–RATINGS.
THE RUNNING MAN seems to be having its own issues gaining critical respect. At this writing, ROTTEN TOMATOES’ Tomatometer from 154 reviews stands at a so-so 64%. There are a handful of favorable ones floating out there as the site’s Christopher Campbell has compiled:
It’s one of the most crowd-pleasing pictures of the year.
— Aidan Kelley, Collider
It’s fun with a bucket of popcorn, hits a theme that will resonate, and gives audiences a good time.
— Kate Sánchez, But Why Tho? A Geek Community
Watching it through the lens of a blockbuster or piece of popcorn entertainment, The Running Man delivers enough energy, style, and star power to keep audiences engaged.
— David Gonzalez, The Cinematic Reel
It is rare that we get a fun new action movie in cinemas and Edgar Wright’s The Running Man gives that rush of a good old-fashioned action film to us and so much more.
— Rachel Leishman, The Mary Sue
Yet the weigh-ins from the more mainstream pubs are anything but outright endorsement. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS’ Jake Coyle:
Edgar Wright’s new big-screen adaptation is fittingly but awkwardly timed. Arriving in the year of King’s imagined dystopia, its near-future has little in it that isn’t already plausible today, making this “Running Man” — while fleet of foot in action — feel a step, or two, behind.
Seitz:
(I)t all feels a bit too calculated to plug into the zeitgeist. For all its impressive, retrofitted production design and filmmaking prowess, its vision of humanity as a desperate, ignorant mob (save for a few good apples) undermines the idea that things could be better if enough people stand up to power and get the truth out (through ’80s style printed ‘zines; yes, really). There’s no compelling evidence onscreen that the huddled masses that the script is so concerned with are truly moved and edified by watching Ben’s rebellious acts and anti-capitalist slogans on TV, or if he’s just their latest shiny object of distraction.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL’s Kyle Smith:
(I)t’s improbable twists and labored, clunky writing all the way.
Still, there are glimmers of positivity, such as what Johnson expressed:
It’s hard to make a two-plus-hour chase movie like this compelling, but Wright gives it a go by peppering the cast with brief appearances by characters far more interesting who help Ben along his way, including William H. Macy’s military surplus store owner, Daniel Ezra’s resistance leader and Michael Cera’s quirky doomsday prepper.
And COMINGSOON.NET’s Devanshi Basu adds this nugget that can’t help but satiate the OK, Boomer crowd:
The Running Man trailer reveals a surprising detail for sharp-eyed viewers: the face of Arnold Schwarzenegger, the original film’s star, now appears on the future’s currency. Director Edgar Wright has now explained the dual meaning behind this clever photographic cameo.
When asked if the appearance of a President Arnold Schwarzenegger on a $100 bill was an obligation to the 1987 film, Wright clarified it was a thoughtful nod. “I thought it was a nice little nod [to the ‘87 film],” Wright told The Hollywood Reporter. Wright then revealed the cameo’s second layer of meaning, crediting another sci-fi classic. “It’s a shared joke with the Demolition Man universe,” he shared. “In Demolition Man, they mention President Schwarzenegger, so it’s my little shout out to both Arnie and [screenwriter] Daniel Waters.”
And with that I’ll reserve judgement of my own until I actually see it, whenever that may be. I don’t watch FAMILY FEUD all that much these days but I do respect its enduring popularity–I spent more for the Harvey version than I spent for anything else at Game Show Network and at one point scheduled it sixteen times a day without eroding any other time period on our air or elsewhere. I also don’t go to as many movies as I used to, either–rent, gas and food take priority, and I’ll never stop taking issue with some chains thinking $20 for greasy macaroni and cheese bites is a bargain.
So I’ll let those that habitually actually go the theatre and choose to spend money or not be the arbiters on whether running THE RUNNING MAN back was savvy or silly. Let them dictate if this generation was worth chasing in the first place.
Until next time…