When Stephen King wrote his dystopian novel "The Running Man" in 1982, he set it in what seemed like a distant future - the year 2025. Now that we've arrived at King's prophesied date, Edgar Wright's new film adaptation feels strangely timed, presenting a near-future America that already seems plausible today.
From Page to Screen: A Troubled Journey
This isn't the first time "The Running Man" has been adapted for the screen. The 1987 version starring Arnold Schwarzenegger presented a very different vision, set in the then-distant year of 2017. Times have certainly changed, and Wright's new interpretation features Glen Powell as protagonist Ben Richards, bringing what should be an upgrade in charisma and screen presence.
The core premise remains similar: a desperate father, facing financial ruin and limited options, auditions for a deadly reality show where survival for 30 days means winning a $1 billion prize. In this version, Richards has exhausted all employment opportunities, consistently labeled insubordinate for advocating for his radiation-exposed colleagues. With a sick baby at home and his wife considering dangerous work, he turns to the Network - the all-powerful, government-controlled media corporation.
A Dystopia Without Teeth
Wright's film, which he co-wrote with Michael Bacall, presents what might be called a genial dystopia. This approach isn't surprising given Wright's background as a playful genre director known for comedic takes on apocalyptic scenarios, as seen in "Shaun of the Dead." However, this lightness comes at a cost - the film strips away the darkest elements of King's original novel and replaces the brutal nihilism of the 1987 Schwarzenegger version with satire that lacks both bite and prescience.
The movie struggles to balance its violent science fiction elements with over-the-top farce, particularly in performances by Colman Domingo as game show host Bobby Thompson and Michael Cera as a paranoid anarchist reminiscent of an adult Kevin McCallister from "Home Alone." While the 1987 version wasn't critically acclaimed either, it at least maintained a consistent tone throughout.
Strong Performances Amid Narrative Struggles
Where the film does excel is in certain casting choices. Josh Brolin delivers a particularly compelling performance as Network head Dan Killian, a slick authority figure who lies through his teeth. Brolin continues his streak of playing corrupt power figures with convincing menace.
Similarly, Colman Domingo brings grand flair to his role as the grinning game show host, though some of his character's impact is diminished by similar roles we've seen before, notably Stanley Tucci's performance in "The Hunger Games" films - which themselves owe a significant debt to "The Running Man" concept.
The game itself begins as an entertaining hide-and-seek chase spanning from New York to Boston to Maine, featuring enjoyable cameos and drone-captured action for live broadcasts. Contestants are released into the world with hunters in pursuit, and anyone who recognizes them can turn them in for rewards.
Missed Opportunities and Modern Relevance
Despite its forward-moving pace, Powell's Richards fails to emerge as a compelling enough character to make the journey truly rewarding. Powell has shown his best work in looser films like his collaborations with Richard Linklater, and here he struggles with a role that requires balancing action heroics with deeper character development.
The film does touch on one aspect that feels genuinely connected to our current reality: media manipulation and AI technology. As Richards' survival stretches into weeks, Killian employs increasingly sophisticated means to portray him as a villain, using digital wizardry to make Richards say or do whatever the Network desires. This raises an honest question about why human contestants are even necessary when technology can create whatever narrative producers want - a question that resonates in our age of deepfakes and AI-generated content.
Ultimately, "The Running Man" arrives as a Paramount Pictures release rated R for strong violence, some gore, and language, with a running time of 133 minutes. While it has moments of flamboyance and entertainment value, it struggles to become the act of resistance it clearly wants to be, feeling more like a missed opportunity than a prescient warning.
