The Running Man Is a Shallow, Socialist Action Fantasy
A dystopian action cartoon for the Bernie bro set.
The biggest twist in The Running Man comes when the credits roll: The screenplay is credited to director Edgar Wright and Michael Bacall. I was shocked. No Zohran Mamdani? Even without his name, the movie plays like a hodgepodge of the incoming New York City mayor's socialist themes.
When we first meet our hero, Ben Richards (Glen Powell), he's begging for work after being blacklisted for union activity. As he watches a junky game show on television with his infant daughter, he trashes the rich for being "full of shit." Since he can't work, he tries out for one of those game shows himself, because it's the only way he can get money to purchase medicine for his sick child. During the tryouts, he's subjected to a battery of physical and psychological tests, including a word association game. When confronted with the word "freedom," he snarls back: "Nope!" At the Washington, D.C., theater where I saw the movie, this got a big laugh.
Like the 1987 Arnold Schwarzenegger film of the same name, The Running Man is an adaptation of the Stephen King novel, set in a dystopian corporatist future where the public is placated by brain rot television. Richards becomes a contestant on a game show in which ordinary people are set loose across America and hunted by a team of elite killers. As the game plays out, the viewing public is rewarded for tips that lead to a kill. The game's host, Bobby T (an electric Colman Domingo), portrays the contestants as foul, anti-American, and angry; Richards' union activity is reframed as a conspiracy to share corporate secrets with Communists. And then the question becomes whether the public will side with the runner or the hunters, and how long the runner, whose winnings increase by the day, will survive.
But unlike the 1980s version, which was essentially a big-man action romp in the era's usual style, Wright's adaptation channels King's left-wing politics with far more vigor. And though it was written and produced before Mamdani's unlikely rise, it shares the same dismal, angry economic worldview, in which wealthy people and corporate overlords manipulate a cruel and uncaring system for personal gain while exploiting workers at the bottom. I was almost surprised when there wasn't a lecture on affordability.
Instead, we get a cacophony of cartoon-like action sequences in Wright's signature zippy style. As in films like Hot Fuzz, Baby Driver, and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Wright renders the world as a sort of bubblegum colored fantasia, a live-action Looney Tunes in which everything bounces along according to a spastic comic rhythm.
No one ever talks like a real human being. Instead, they spit out zingers and theme-y declarations as if writing blurb copy for the movie, or preparing, like characters in a musical, to break out in song. The Running Man isn't a musical, but with its focus on hyper expressive faces, choreography gags, and exaggerated sentiment, it sometimes feels like one. Indeed, it's only when the soundtrack kicks in and the action choreography dances along that the movie really comes to life.
As an action fantasy, it's a stylish enough showcase for Wright's visual flair and sardonic sensibility. The camera floats through the frames, often mimicking the point of view of the robot cameras that follow the game show action. The nimbly edited action sequences turn on musical cues. From time to time, it's funny and fun.
But Wright is so devoted to his cartoon-musical style that he can't muster much of an emotional connection. Like the fictional game show itself, Richards' familial stakes come across as concocted to manipulate viewers rather than present a meaningful human drama. There's just not much to hold onto, no heart-tugging anchor for the movie's angry politics.
Meanwhile, those politics are fairly muddled: The single all-powerful network that runs the game show and the economy (and also turns out to be poisoning children) functions more like an authoritarian state than a wielder of private corporate power in a competitive market. Top-down social and economic control in which an all-powerful authority deploys gun-toting, uniformed enforcers to deprive people of freedom, individuality, and the right to earn a living? Turns out socialists don't like that much either.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
A brand new concept! Finally!!!
Hot Fuzz? With Simon Pegg and Nick Frost? I had to look it up to make sure it was what I remembered. 18 years ago. I don't remember any politics in it, just a fun silly movie. Maybe I ought to watch it again.
This movie sounds like a dreadful political polemic dripping with jealousy and hatred.
I don't remember any politics in it, just a fun silly movie.
Did you read the sentence? It wasn't a comment on politics it was a comment on composition and pacing specifically contrasting the previous political paragraph. It's not a grizzly survival-horror or a creeping bank heist. It's a StreetFighter/Mortal Kombat-esque,
Don't question, just consume Product then get excited for Next Productskill the current flashy-colored enemy, proceed to the next, more powerful, flashy-colored enemy until you get to the boss.This movie sounds like a dreadful political polemic dripping with jealousy and hatred.
Yeah. It sounds like the turns from the original (movie) are almost deliberately self-undermining. Arnie's Ben Richards lost his job because he wouldn't fire on food rioters and then fought for his freedom. The contrast between him actually fighting for his freedom with underground rebels against (a tired and conflicted) Captain Freedom being... more pointed (for an 80s action film). This Ben Richards appears to have protested his way out of his own job and then gets jaded for having had the freedom to do so.
The original was more inveighing against decadence and the evils of "late stage capitalism". This one sounds more opposed to capitalism and even freedom itself.
Uh, bud, I was comparing two movies by the same director. Did you read the comment?
Weird. "You" only mentioned Hot Fuzz. Suderman mentions three movies in addition to The Running Man, but they were all from Wright. Thus, contrasting the apparent politics of The Running Man with the familiar borderline-slapstick, rather apolitical, staged progression of the other three movies.
If you enjoyed the previous iteration of Running Man for people getting electrocuted in their underwear and fired out of a rocket sled and exploding into a fireball when they hit their own billboard, it sounds like the action is on par. This won't be a John Wick film.
I thought Hot Fuzz was pretty good but not as good as Sean of the Dead.
I am of the oposite opinion, I preferred Hot Fuzz. Mind you, there were some funny ideas and scenes in Sean of the Dead as well. Both were enjoyable - i just cant stand the overdose of lay-a-bout unengaged slobs that you get in Sean of the Dead.
same old tired Hollywood tropes. Trump's video of the jet flyover shitting on the masses accomplishes the same theme and saves about 2 hours of run time
Does Harry Sisson make a cameo in this?
It's kinda hilarious that they did it better in the 1980's.
Maybe someone should actually try to film King's story one day though? Rather than their own story with this title slapped on to it.
I blame Stanley Kubrick.
I thought the remake of Firestarter was actually pretty good, especially for Netflix.
Zac Effron is still a little bit too much of a typecast cartoon character but he does a decent job and David Keith is/was no Hank Azaria (or Robin Williams or whatever talented/multi-faceted prototype you prefer).
For all the diversity hires and minority roles and whatnot in Hollywood, I didn't miss George C. Scott as John Rainbird.
Here is Sub-zero. Now, plain zero.
https://tenor.com/view/arnold-schwarzenegger-yelling-plain-zero-sub-zero-gif-17635533
Needs more gay cartoon characters.
So Suderman has nothing better to do than cover C, D and E movies based on Gee Oh Peekeepers and (shudder!) Stevie King novels?
The original was partly responsible for one of the biggest rave songs of the 90s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKduhUXa0rg
I don't agree. I saw it over the weekend and really liked it.
This new rendition of "The Running Man" was more of a commentary about the state of civilization where you have a caste system that the Left has been pushing for along with the surveillance and police state to back it up.
Besides, isn't ironic that Richards condemns the rich while aspiring to win $1 billion? The so-called "rich" in this movie and most of them today are in fact Leftists so he actually may have a point. I am firmly of the belief that wealthy people support the Left because they hate the idea of people other than them becoming wealthy and back Democrats and Leftist causes to minimize competition. This film might have pointed that out.
Besides, this new version is truer to the book while the original film was really made with Arnold Schwarzenegger in mind. FWIW, I saw the original in theaters during 1987 and I think both can and should be appreciated in their own rights. Both films are good, fun action films with decent social commentary.