Edgar Wright’s ‘The Running Man’ limps into theaters too relevant to be any fun

by

If you pay attention to the world today, you’ll notice that many things once considered science fiction from the 20th century are now reality. In 2025 – the year Stephen King imagined in his 1982 novel The Running Man – we’re seeing things like constant technological monitoring, powerful corporations acting like feudal lords, media used for propaganda, and huge gaps between the rich and poor – all of which King predicted. Like other great science fiction writers such as Philip K. Dick and George Orwell, King was trying to warn us about a potential future. However, instead of avoiding that future, people seem to be embracing it, as seen when Elon Musk proudly compared the Tesla Cybertruck to a vehicle from Blade Runner, seemingly missing the point that a dystopian world isn’t something to aspire to – and that Harrison Ford isn’t actually named Bladerunner.

It’s a strange time for Edgar Wright to revisit “The Running Man.” While his new adaptation stays closer to the original book than the over-the-top 1987 film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger (which was best enjoyed as a parody), it lacks energy and impact. The filmmakers removed the story’s 2025 setting and only made minor updates to the visuals, like adding drone technology. Ultimately, the remake doesn’t feel urgent or particularly insightful; it’s a blurry depiction of the present rather than a frightening vision of the future.

I just watched this wild movie starring Glen Powell as a guy named Ben, a desperate dad who’s basically been ruined professionally. He ends up signing up for this insane TV show – seriously, no one’s ever made it through. It’s on this streaming service, FreeVee, that seems to be working hand-in-hand with the government, which is a little creepy. The deal is, every day he survives the attempts on his life, he earns money for his wife and really sick baby – potentially a billion dollars if he can last a whole month! And get this – the money has the face of the Governor on it, which is a weird touch.

Look, the whole setup is just manipulative. The show’s producer, Dan Killian, and that slick host, Bobby T, actively whip the audience into a frenzy, offering money to anyone who helps ‘catch’ Ben. They paint him as a lazy mooch, playing into that tired trope of blaming the poor for society’s problems and pitting everyone against each other. It’s genuinely disturbing – I saw one viewer, an elderly woman, who sincerely believed Ben was harming animals! Her own son just looked defeated, saying she used to be a thoughtful person before getting sucked into this toxic spectacle.

Wright’s film aims to satirize politics by mirroring the absurdity of modern news. The story features elements like armored vehicles and masked groups hunting down the protagonist for a reward, but it doesn’t quite create a sense of pervasive paranoia. Even when a character’s disguise fails, the feeling of being watched doesn’t fully land. A con artist warns that televisions are spying on people, but this doesn’t feel convincingly threatening—it’s easier to feel uneasy around something like a smart speaker, such as an Alexa.

The satire in this film feels surprisingly tame and lacks impact. Nothing feels particularly shocking, thought-provoking, or ahead of its time. We see advertisements for a real energy drink called Liquid Death and a reality show, “The Americanos,” that feels very similar to shows already on TV. Even the film’s most ‘normal’ character, a hostage named Amelia, could easily be mistaken for a yoga or Pilates instructor.

Bradley (Daniel Ezra), a character fighting from the shadows, points out that the media often simplifies people to fit certain stereotypes, and this feels very relevant to today’s viewers. The character was originally written as an environmental activist, but now he mostly acts as a critic of television. Similarly, Bradley’s friend Elton (Michael Cera) has changed from a naive idealist into someone who causes trouble – almost like the mischievous Kevin McCallister from “Home Alone” grew up and joined a protest group. While Elton’s reasons for acting the way he does aren’t clear, Cera brings so much energy to the role that his scenes are genuinely funny. He even delivers a silly line about liking his bacon “extra crispy” right before attacking a group of police officers, and this moment sets the tone for the rest of the movie, which is filled with corny jokes.

Wright excels at choosing memorable actors. The portrayal of the over-the-top celebrity host by Domingo is particularly strong, complete with a surprisingly good retro dance. We’re given just a glimpse of the other contestants, played by Katy O’Brian and Martin Herlihy, leaving us wanting more screen time with them. Karl Glusman delivers a performance with such captivating intensity that it’s clear he’s one to watch. It’s a shame, however, that the compelling Lee Pace is largely hidden throughout the film as the villain.

Powell is facing the challenge of becoming a true Hollywood star. While everyone believes he has potential, he hasn’t yet found the perfect role to launch him to the next level. He’s currently being used for a bit of everything – comedy, action, drama, and romance – but his character doesn’t quite allow his talents to shine. The film repeatedly tells us his character is furious, but Powell’s naturally charming and appealing personality makes him seem more annoyed than angry. His strongest scenes are comedic, like when he adopts an Irish accent while disguised as a priest, or his witty exchanges during a word-association therapy session. For example, when asked about ‘Anarchy,’ he replies ‘Win,’ and to ‘Justice,’ he says ‘Hilarious.’

I really missed the intensely hateful and radical character from King’s original story – a bitter man who saw himself not as a small part of a system, but as a key player in a rebellion. The film touches on this idea, but doesn’t commit to it fully, lacking the intensity to truly disturb. It’s unfair to compare the movie directly to the book – especially considering King’s ending would have been impossible for the director to replicate, though his alternative solution is fairly inventive. Ultimately, the film just doesn’t have enough anger, violence, or enjoyment.

Perhaps Edgar Wright feels similarly. He’s wanted to create this film since 2017, but unfortunately, Paramount made it at a time when the studio prioritized profits over people. The irony is striking: the movie ends with a message of unity against a powerful system, only to be branded with the logo of a corporation. It’s a bleak commentary, and it’s possible the full story of what Wright had to compromise to get the film made would be even more disheartening.

Read More

2025-11-14 00:31