If there is one thing America loves, it’s a dystopian novel adaptation. The continued exploration and success of the “Hunger Games” franchise is proof enough.
At the moment, it seems as if there is a resurgence in Stephen King adaptations. In just the last year alone, there have been four movies based on King’s work, including “The Long Walk,” which received mild success. TV is also ripe with King adaptations, such as HBO’s “It” prequel series “Welcome to Derry,” MGM’s “The Institute” and the upcoming Mike Flanagan “Carrie” remake.
Adapting the 1982 novel and remaking the 1987 film, “The Running Man” (2025) has a lot of people to please. Will it cross the finish line or fall flat on its face?
The book “The Running Man” was written in under a week and essentially published as a first draft back in 1982. King decided to put this out under the pen name Richard Bachman. It is generally regarded as a more mid-tier novel for him, as readers believe it does not reach the highs of what King can do.
Not long after this release, the 1987 film was put into production. It went through a number of directors before landing on Paul Michael Glaser, with Arnold Schwarzenegger starring as Ben Richards. Both King and Schwarzenegger believe a lot of the creative choices were a mistake. The darker tone of the novel was traded for ‘80s action schlock and corny one-liners. Paul will take a small moment to review this adaptation: it sucks.
Director Edgar Wright tweeted in 2017 that if he could make any remake of any movie, it would be “The Running Man”. It was finally announced four years later that he would helm a new film adaptation of the King novel. Glen Powell was cast in the lead role in April of 2024 and approved by King himself. After wrapping shooting in March of this year, the film was released on Nov. 14. Needless to say, we have strong opinions on it.
Sarah’s Dispatch
I walked in pretty much blind to the movie, not knowing anything but the basic premise. “The Running Man” may not be a revolutionary movie, but it was a good watch.
The opening of the film introduces us to Ben Richards, his wife Sheila, their daughter and a (not-so-distant) future America. In this America, the government is controlled by multi-billion-dollar companies that exploit labor, and who have created a system of hypervigilance and disenfranchisement. Sound familiar? As a struggling low-income family, the Richards’ lack of funds becomes dangerous when their daughter becomes sick.
Because of circumstances, Ben Richards is pushed to join the Running Man: a reality TV show where contestants are hunted for 30 days. If they survive, they win $1 billion. Though the competition is extremely dangerous and never ends in a winner, Richards risks everything playing this game for the chance at changing his family’s life.
From the start, the world building may have been minimal, but what we got was solid. The set design, the surveillance state and the divide between the rich and poor were all presented in an interesting way, and I wished we saw more of it.
Outside of the world of the movie, I thought the story was good. A lower-class man trying to push against a fascist capitalist system isn’t something we see very often. To see characters actively criticize and try to dismantle the impending doom we all face was refreshing.
The only problem is that the story, in all the ways that mattered, lacks depth and complexity. I walked out of the theatre saying it felt like a white guy’s “Hunger Games” due to its subject matter of controlling governments and America’s love to sensationalize suffering. The horrendous product placement didn’t help, either.
Revolution is made easy to Richards, and the world magically sees his struggle. As he wades through the trials that come with the game, Richards, in his righteous anger, begins pushing back against the showrunner and the government. And somehow, as if by magic, many of the American people hear and see that plight and finally decide to raise up and join him.
The movie treats revolution as if it is just a little hack that people forgot about in their everyday life. Revolution has never been and never will be easy, and misunderstanding that is one of the film’s greatest flaws. The film stands as a millennial fantasy of America’s final revolt against the capitalist system that this country holds so dearly.
In the way of dystopia, the movie kind of falls flat, but in the way of action, it was great. There were some really great fight scenes and a solid performance from Glen Powell.
If you’re looking for a revolutionary piece of film, this one isn’t it — but if you’re looking for something fun and interesting, “The Running Man” could be for you. This is honestly the perfect dad movie, so if you need something to see with the old man this Thanksgiving, he’ll probably enjoy this.
Paul’s Dispatch
I will not bury the lede here: I did not like this movie. It is easily the weakest of Wright’s filmography and the other King adaptations released this year. I am not quite sure what happened to Wright. He was one of the first filmmakers I truly got into and fell in love with, and I’ve seen all his movies over the years.
This film plays more like a generic action flick with a faint whiff of Wright’s unique style. You can somewhat remember that he directed this in a handful of moments during a few action scenes. The veteran’s hostel fight shows this the best. It has a lot of fun camera work, and the editing shows a hint of Wright’s usual personality.
Despite this lackluster style, I must praise the set pieces here. The aforementioned hostel fight is where it peaks, but there’s pretty good stuff in the latter half as well. One scene that manages to get close is the final plane fight. Glen Powell shines through with just how infuriated he is, and the bare-knuckles bloodiness is palpable. It was a fun Easter egg for fans of the book to incorporate a coffee pot into the fight.
Unfortunately, this movie has a massive tone and pacing problem. Wright has been known to be able to combine melodrama and serious moments with his signature, fast-paced humor before. Yet, this time around, it mixes like oil and water.
So many moments that could have been given more time to breathe just were not. What could have been interesting and contemplative is replaced with lame bits and corny jokes (see the hot dog scene with Michael Cera).
I don’t fully buy Powell as the angry, down-on-his-luck, working-class man. Ben Richards should be someone who looks like he smells and every word out of his mouth sounds like venom. Powell gives off vibes of a mildly annoyed frat guy. He has his moments in the finale, but throughout the movie, people just tell you he is an angry guy rather than effectively showing it.
The best casting choice was obviously Colman Domingo. He unsurprisingly steals the show and delivers his lines with an energy unmatched by the larger cast. Josh Brolin and Lee Pace are the only other somewhat standouts here merely because of how cool they can be. Everyone else is running on autopilot or just isn’t doing great with the material given.
This leads into my biggest problem besides the lack of style and mostly bad cinematography. This film commits a book-to-movie adaptation sin that is consistent in Hollywood: sanitizing the tone and characters. The narrative feels like it is afraid of people being too unlikeable or the tone being too bleak.
Richards in the book is not a role model or action hero. He is a desperate and weak man who will do anything to help his family. He will be a jerk and regret it, but ultimately justify it to himself. He still shows care for his loved ones and others, but in smaller ways.
In this film, though, he is lauded as the coolest guy ever who starts a revolution just by being cool. God forbid we have someone who is morally questionable and says things the audience might not like.
Other people around the country help him, but out of a show of class solidarity, not because they think he’s the second coming of Christ. This, in turn, ruins their lives.
It is not all bad though. There are somewhat fun parts of what they did with the ending. (This does not include the god-awful Discover card commercial looking grocery store scene where they reveal Powell’s wife to still be alive. Why couldn’t there be some mystery to if she’s actually dead or not?)
Incorporating misinformation and AI augmentation throughout the story is cool and relevant. Obviously, this is a big state-run media allegory, but it is still a fairly sanitized, hopeful, millennial way of looking at it. This movie lives in a fairytale where this one special guy will unite everybody once they see the truth, and a revolution will begin with only a little pushback.
The very end does go kind of hard. The shot of Powell stepping through the destroyed screen akin to the fake tv show they wanted to make for him looks cool. He flips the table by making theatrics over shooting Brolin, but no one is watching.
Overall, this is probably my most disappointing movie of the year. I hope Edgar Wright can put another ace in the hole with his next one.
Final Ranking
Sarah: 7/10
Paul: 4/10
As opposed to our “Frankenstein” review, it seems we are unfortunately split on this one. Overall, you can have fun with this film, but it is not something you must race to the theater for. Check out the book, at the very least.
