Movie Review: ‘The Running Man’ November 19, 2025By John Mulderig OSV News Filed Under: Movie & Television Reviews EW YORK (OSV News) – Rage is the predominant emotion in “The Running Man” (Paramount), the second screen version of Stephen King’s eponymous 1982 novel. As directed and co-written by Edgar Wright, it’s an anger-fuelled action film that’s bitter in mood as well as morally ambivalent. The irascible tone of the movie is set by its main character, impoverished factory hand Ben Richards (Glen Powell). Stuck in the lowest stratum of his dystopian society, Ben fumes over its injustices, including his recent firing from a job because he blew the whistle on unsafe working conditions. Unemployed and desperate to buy the expensive medicine required to treat his gravely ill young daughter, Ben reluctantly agrees to participate in the TV show of the title. A reality series, the program features contestants who are hunted down both by professional gunmen and ordinary citizens and must survive this universal pursuit for 30 days to claim a huge monetary prize. Early on, Dan Killian (Josh Brolin), the oily corporate bigwig who produces “The Running Man,” tries to convince Ben that the unbridled fury he constantly displays will enable him to become the competition’s first-ever winner. But it doesn’t take long for Ben to discover that the proceedings are rigged with an eye on the ratings. All aspects of Ben’s only-slightly futuristic world are portrayed with the deepest cynicism, family life alone excepted. And the script, penned with Michael Bacall, tries to have it both ways where the mayhem of the chase is concerned. Thus Ben conforms to certain basic ethical rules and displays solidarity toward other victims of the system. Yet he pursues a vendetta against Killian and the audience is not only invited to root for Ben against his innumerable adversaries — Killian included — but to revel in their deaths. Unsurprisingly, Ben uses a number of disguises. At one point, he sports the clerical garb and white stick of a blind priest. Presuming that this sequence is derived from the original source material, it becomes the occasion for King’s trademark animus toward organized religion to find vent in a mocking treatment of Catholic moral teaching. Add this to the other unsavory elements incorporated into the production and the upshot is an adventure best avoided. The film contains muddled moral values, mostly nongraphic but occasionally intensely gory violence, numerous grisly sights, a vengeance theme, crass anti-Catholic humor, drug use, rear male and partial nudity, an incidental lesbian theme, several profanities, about a dozen milder oaths, frequent rough and pervasive crude language, much crass talk and obscene gestures. The OSV News classification is O – morally offensive. The Motion Picture Association rating is R — restricted. Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian. Read More Movie & TV Reviews Movie Review: ‘Goat’ Home viewing roundup: What’s available to stream and what’s on horizon Russia’s war on Ukraine means ‘No Priests Left,’ documentary shows Movie Review: ‘Midwinter Break’ A look at the Academy Awards Best Picture Nominees Movie Review: ‘The Strangers – Chapter 3’ Copyright © 2025 OSV News Print
