The Running Man

It turned out to be some kind of second-rate comedy. such a scenario was screwed up...

Not bad, not bad. The main character pulls all the director's shoals.

It's a good movie, I expected the worst from the trailer, but it turned out to be a great action movie that holds the attention. Edgar Wright is good at it, but he didn't understand the reasons for the low rating.

It's not exactly a masterpiece, but it deserves attention. It turned out to be much better than expected. Actors 👍🏼

I don't think Powell is at all suited for this role. He has the role of an asshole who shines with all his teeth, and in the role of a sullen, angry father of a family, he looks somehow strange.

The film itself seems like a throwback from a bygone era, with the pros and cons of old-fashioned action movies. If they hadn't done something wrong with the ending, it would have been nice. And so, well, this is classic: the book will be better after all.

The plot came out rather crumpled, after watching there was some kind of cheap residue. The idea is great, I'm sure the book is also interesting, the actors are just wow, but still something was missing. As for me, the dynamics are too big for one movie. Such an interesting world has been revealed very little, everything has been crammed in as quickly as possible, but where are the pauses, doubts, moments to "think"? I would like to reveal more about this film, to see the characters a little deeper. The woman in the car hates him so much and as soon as he showed a picture of his wife and child, she doubted her opinion and was already helping him, and half an hour had not passed ... or other people who are risking their lives for him, and where are their doubts and worries about their own skin? I didn't have enough of a traitor to offer help and then turn him in, because there are a lot of people who are willing to do anything for some meager money. The film was somewhat reminiscent of the Hunger Games, also a favorite, a favorite of the public that ignited a spark of rebellion, protest and doubt, but bliiiin if they could distort information so quickly, well, it would be almost impossible for ordinary people to see the good side of GG. The satire was sustained, but I didn't have enough of this film to look at the characters better, their realities, and the death of the main antagonist is as dumb as possible, where all the guards are, anyway, the film is 6/10 only for the action, even though it was super crumpled.

It feels like the script was written by people who had just reviewed "Idiocracy" and decided: "Let's make it even dumber!" And they got it. It's easy, casual, and so crooked that it's almost a talent.

The main character... well, this is a separate type of punishment. He's not just annoying, he's acting like an unsatisfied schoolboy who freaks out about anything. He's always yelling, twitching, breaking down out of the blue — and at the same time remains somehow indestructible and absolutely meaningless. Honestly, you don't feel sorry for him for a second. At some point, you start rooting for hunters simply because they at least look like adults.

The action is the apogee of crookedness. The hero runs down a straight corridor, and the arrows around him hit anywhere: the walls, the ceiling, the air, maybe even their own careers — but not him. The stormtroopers from "Star Wars" on their background are world—class snipers.

Hunters, oddly enough, are the only ones who arouse even the slightest sympathy. They're trying to do their job, but the hero just gets hysterical and rushes back and forth, as if this is a show "Who's louder than the hysterics - he survived."

And of course, where without a summons. She was shoved in there so clumsily that they don't even try to hide it. They just threw it from above, so that it would be "as it should be." There is no logic, no connection — it is there precisely because it is so fashionable now.

As a result, the film looks like a parody of himself. Not an action movie, not a thriller, but a random set of scenes with a screaming character that for some reason no one can get into. And one main question remains: who approved it for production at all?

In general, it turned out well. The film holds your attention. And you even empathize with the character. There is something so elusive in style that it resembles the old style of action movies. Well, the highly social element was added to the script to make people feel completely emotional.

At first I didn't want to watch it, I thought it would be a remix from the original that Glazer shot with Arnold, and since I'm not a fan of remixes and covers, I didn't watch it willingly for 20 minutes, but Glen Jr. made me watch this movie to the end
. p.s. maybe I should start watching movies with new actors but based on old pictures))

I have 2 questions: where did they get the ZIL and how did they manage to get Brolin?)

The film has generally rather lukewarm reviews, and it failed at the box office. It's not that bad for me. It's quite a decent action movie for these days. It's like another remake of a hit with Schwartz, "Remember Everything." Even if he is already far from new).

These assistants are so funny 😅

👏🏼

The scene in the house is probably the most interesting thing in the movie.

The essence of all this is to instill hatred in people towards each other

In the future, megacorporations have power, and it becomes very difficult for ordinary people to survive, especially if you are fired from your job, your child is sick, and your wife works as a waitress in a strip club, collecting crumbs of tips.
But meanwhile, on TV, which everyone watches like zombies, there is a Running Man show in prime time, in which the winner will receive a yard of money.
Has anyone ever won, of course not. Is there any hope for GG, so far yes.

In the middle of the movie, I caught myself thinking that I had caught a vibe of a Death Race with Statham.

So the race was kind of better.

And here they painted everything with bright colors (purely the Capitol from the GI), dusted with jokes for three hundred and Powell's naked torso (gorgeous, I don't argue!), but they didn't put the squeeze on the gloom, they caricatured too much.

So I'm a little disappointed, and I'm not even sorry that I didn't get to see the movie.

I also agree that the film is not so bad. there are disadvantages, of course, and Powell, as for me, is generally a complete miskast and is not suitable for this role.
and Brolin, on the contrary, is cool, it turned out well.

otherwise, it is basically dynamic. The visuals and effects are well done. they also tried to dilute all this with jokes, but it turned out to be rather more ridiculous and not quite appropriate.

if you don't compare it with the book and the previous adaptation, then it's just for once.
in fact, the film was released at the same time as the last "Predator" and "The Illusion of Deception" and therefore went almost unnoticed, but nevertheless the film may well entertain.

Crazy shit. I don't even know who messed up more - the scriptwriters (there are already three of them!) or the editor, because there seems to be no connection between the scenes. I spent most of the movie trying to figure out how he got here, why he came here, who these characters are, why they behave the way they do. I came to the only explanation - Edgar Wright, apparently, by default believes that we either watched the film adaptation of Verhoeven, or read King's novel and know ent like the back of our hand. It's awesome, but the last time I watched the first movie was back in the years when the First Channel was called ORT.

The main failure is the protagonist. Which genius came up with the idea that Glen Powell is the new big actor? His goal is to play captain of the high school football team. He is extremely comical in this role, which makes it impossible to empathize with him.

The only bright spot in this barely standing structure is Colman Domingo, an absolutely organic design. He should have remained the antagonist, but for some reason Brolin's character was shoved into the film, although it is obvious to anyone that they had to be combined into one person, as happens in real life when the host also acts as the editor-in-chief of the show.

And after all, the same man once shot the brilliant Scott Pilgrim...

I haven't read the book, but what I've seen is pretty good.
I caught Soviet-era vibes where everyone was denouncing each other

According to the current lack of fish, it is a strong cancer.
But not a masterpiece.
For one brief recap.

The scriptwriters failed badly in the second half, the scenes were unfinished.

They made a worse movie with Schwarzenegger. How did they manage? They killed the script, sent subpoenas, stripped the main character of his charisma (they do everything for him here, he just runs around and gets hysterical), killed suspense (and no one cares what happens next), disfigured the ending (what it was, anyway).

Dumb shit dumb shit, I'm sorry.

King's novel is a dystopia, it's about hopelessness and the degradation of society. Above, they absolutely compared the film adaptation with Idiocracy.

On the other hand, there is an article attached to the film stating that Stephen King personally approved the main character, which is even more confusing. The maestro couldn't help but see Powell's role and psychotype as an actor. I would like to bring in some Edward Norton (BC Palahniuk) or Oscar Isaac (Dune Atreides Sr.), the gloom from the Dark Knight, and give it to some Villeneuve or the Cohen brothers.

In short, I was waiting for a serious movie based on a serious book, without looking back at the film adaptation with Schwarzenegger, and I watched some kind of fart in a puddle, a trash movie.

We need to look at the old version and read the original source.

I thought bad action movies were made in the 90s... The film is an absolute failure: the acting is lame (well, except for Brolin), the editing is lame, the action is supposedly taken from old comedies. The Arnold movie didn't have enough stars from the sky, but this work is a cut below, it's a pity to put even one

It's good that I've already forgotten the book a bit, otherwise it would be very hard to watch. Despite the decent timing, the characters are completely undisclosed. Gg's family looks unnatural, they didn't sympathize with anyone, and they didn't even feel sorry for the child. To show the main character's bitterness and desperation, it wasn't necessary to make him so hysterical. It's dynamic, it's fine to kill an evening, but I'd like a darker and more serious film.

In five minutes... Four... three... two... One... Action!

There was everything: the action, the actors, the humor, the plot from Stephen King. And it was all on a level. Yes, there were holes, and it seemed a little tightened, so what? I had a great two hours anyway))

Well, if you ignore the movie with Schwartz, then it turned out to be a very good movie... The hunters in the old movie were more charismatic. And so it turned out to be a very dynamic action movie.

I expected the worst, but I didn't notice how time flew by. This movie won't be as much of a favorite as it was with Arnie, but I had a good evening. It was stupid somewhere, and there was a lack of plot gloom, but the dynamics were there and I wasn't bored.

You can watch it once. And so it's just slag!

I do not know what the commentators above wanted from the film, I came to watch the action movie, and I got it. Shootouts, fights, swings, action, weird help, a minimum of snot, a couple of jokes. He stared at it.
If you wanted to philosophize, you obviously chose the wrong genre. I hadn't read the book, and I didn't even know it was King. Maybe that's what saved me. I liked the movie. However, I certainly won't review it, well, maybe in 5 years, when I forget.

It turned out fine, that's all. Well, just above (or below), you have already written, described and indicated everything.

I liked the movie, it's no worse than other major action movies of previous years. I watched it after reading the negative reviews, but I enjoyed watching it anyway.

For me, the basic ideas are clearer than the problems of conditional illegal immigrants from the same "Battle after Battle". Glen Powell is more suited to comedy than action, but I've never had an ardent love for any of the main characters in an action movie (my favorite actors are either "British villains" or "so-so jokers").

I don't consider the "Spirit of the 80s" of the film to be something shameful. Maybe because the 80s were the golden age of action movies, maybe because modern action movies are either comic books or reinterpretations of classics. Or maybe it's just that the genre of "action movie" raises people's expectations to the skies? Since when, I wonder.

Like the action movies from the 80s, the film turned out to be a nod to the conservative part of the population. Is "Running Man" also Republican propaganda about a representative of the working class who challenged the liberal elites, distracting people from economic problems with all kinds of TV shows? 😵

Very cool, I liked the movie.

Surprisingly good

It's a funny movie. I liked

It all started pretty well. Well, yes, instead of an ex-cop, we now have some kind of... uh... a family man, kind of like a simple hard worker, but at the same time with strange connections... uh... let's say. He goes there because he needs money for the child, let's say... He gets to the wrong place because... Hmm, he's kind of evil and somehow hasn't grown up to be an intellectual elite capable of running in a wheel. But okay. And then begins the complete failure of the lore of this world on all fronts.

Like, here we have the poor, the poor, the hungry. But we have the cool, the rich, and the powerful. And it seems like they don't really overlap. In fact, we will be shown that there is a completely normal interpenetration between these worlds. The authors can't understand something - they're trying to show a dystopia here, or some kind of our reality. They rush back and forth all the time, as it suits them.

No, I'm not saying anything — Wright knows how to make cool shots and cool decisions about details. But the general problem is that he can't create a cool background for all of this. Guys (insert a meme here) ha ha ha, I live here. I can hardly believe that we have a whole bunch of people here who REALLY believe in what is happening on TV. Yes, they can pretend to believe it, but then be so surprised to find out about the lies that they go to the barricades? Oh, I'm sorry. Again— there is a scene where the host of the show openly sends the head of the show, referring to the contract. Dude, this guy just sent a whole bunch of people to their deaths. Judging by the lore of this world, he is the law here. And you just walked away, saying that you have a line in the contract somewhere? You either acknowledge that you have the power of contracts, or maintain faith in the right of the strong. These two things don't go together.

In short, according to the results, it all looks pretty cool. But if you even think about what is happening, it feels as if the author of the script is such an infantile teenager who took all his knowledge about the world from videos on YouTube.

It feels like Hardcore + like cool cops.
I don't know how it is in the book, but for this film the plot is quite itself, a couple of cool minor characters, the action is moderately spread out over the film, the base in the form of hatred of corporations remains.
I'm glad that in a dystopian future, you can just go to Canada.

In the story from Stephen King (the book of his pseudonym Richard Bachman), the main character falls on an airplane into the tower of concentration of all the bad, literally winding his guts on the chairs. What he fought for-his family-is gone.
The Arnold movie was far from a book, but it was dynamic.
This movie is trying to make a book, and additionally trying to make a movie with Arnold. But I couldn't even get close to any of it. The rebirth of the main character in the finale with his family is a completely unnecessary and unnecessary addition that makes this raw product even more worthless.

I was expecting a hat, but I didn't look up until the end. Only at some point it seems that too much is crammed into the plot. The image of Lee Pace especially came in, he looked great (as if it could be otherwise).

gg is kind of dumb

Xs, it's some kind of weird movie, like it's not a movie at all

The Hellhounds and hunters clearly learned how to shoot at the Imperial Stormtrooper Academy.
I watched a one-time movie and forgot.

I was more satisfied with the ending, as in the book.

Why don't we take a swing at Stephen King?
A cheerful film adaptation without Arnie and the Dynamo man, but taking into account the technological realities of the modern world.
A blunder and an oversight that no totalitarian techno-dictatorship would ever commit and that underlies the book and both films - a system that suddenly relies on a man "from the people" who suddenly became popular. Of course not, this will never happen. Whether it's one person in power or a mega corporation, they will never allow a single person to become at least a dumb popular, random rebel, and even on the contrary, they will try to discredit or destroy him. Apparently, this is the main fantastic line of this work.

It's a cool movie, I liked it in general, but the ending is so-so.. It seems that it was compressed for the sake of timing. It would be cooler if they showed exactly how Richard survived and survived after the plane was shot down, and how he got into the tower.

I don't know. In principle, it's not a bad movie, sometimes they even joke, although rarely. There's not a lot of action either, and it's not exactly interesting. Retrofuturism, I would say, is hacky, it could have been much more interesting to do, but Wright was clearly not up to it. Powell is not exactly a star, as he is directly called in the film, but a good actor, except that he has an uppermiddle written on his face, it's not for him to play a worker. In short, everything is as it is, but everything is somehow not very good. Well, the ending is strange. Like the hero won despite the fact that all the villains' plans succeeded, because... Because what? Ah! Yes, because he's in charge, and the power lies in the truth, for sure.
Rather disappointed, but I won't rate it.

I don't know why everyone is so unhappy. The film keeps you in suspense until the very end, it's interesting to watch every second. Michael Cera played it really well, his character got into the soul. It's a pretty good action movie.

Glen Powell is wonderful, of course, but he doesn't save mediocre movies. I don't see where Edgar Wright is at all. Usually, even weak films, I could call HIS weak films, and this could have been made by anyone. Two hours felt like three and a half. The ending is also disappointing.

It turned out to be a great movie. Explosions, chases, memorable characters, a good plot - everything is there. I watched and enjoyed it.

For me, it turned out to be a good strong dystopian action movie, I don't really remember the version with Schwartz anymore, I watched it small, and even then it was probably 1 time in full, so it's even somehow difficult to compare. But for once it will do to pass the time - 4/5

For me, it was the most anticipated film of the year because it was directed by my favorite director, Edgar Wright. So when I saw the average grades, I couldn't believe it. But after watching it, I have to admit that I expected more from Wright. The film was shot with high quality, there are no questions about the visual effects and the action, although the director's signature handwriting is not recognizable (I watched the Cornetto trilogy without exaggeration 10 times, so I know his handwriting). Glenn Powell is not very suitable for this role and the whole movie is forced to get angry.

Well, the authors overdid the plot in the second half.: she looks unconvincing, and the film sags on her. Although, as I understood it, this was the case in the book, and the film mostly follows it, unlike the previous film adaptation, but still the authors should have changed this part. All in all, it turned out to be a good action movie, but it's not the level of Edgar Wright, so I was a little disappointed. I don't think I'll ever want to review this film like his other works.

“stop it. Me. Shoot!

A dystopian future. Ben Richards is unemployed, blacklisted by an evil megacorporation. Because of his character, he is not hired for any jobs. Ben's little daughter is sick, there are not enough funds, his wife is already thinking of doing all sorts of bad things with clients where she works as a hostess. Richards decides to take part in one of the television shows where he can earn money. But after an extremely successful casting, the producers send him not to some relatively harmless, albeit painful, self-love program, but to the most cruel one - the "Running Man". The stake here is a human life, but the payoff is fabulous.

After learning that Edgar Wright would direct a new version of Running Man, I found it difficult to find a more suitable person to convey the adrenaline frenzy of the survival show. When I see her, I want to say, "Please take Wright away from Hollywood." To be honest, I didn't understand what had become of Wright's energy. Maybe the American studios are putting pressure on him. Maybe it's the age. But the expected endless drive did not happen.

Don't get me wrong. The new "Running Man" is not a bad movie by any means, but it has certain problems with self-identification. On the one hand, Wright promised to make a film adaptation closer to King's (or rather, Bakhman's) novel. And he did it. The plot adheres quite tightly to the main points from the book. Well, somewhere avoiding the tinplate of prostitution on the part of Richards' wife, but not critically. On the other hand, despite the fact that there is no outright clowning (not in a bad way) of the Schwarzenegger version, the film has too light a tone. In any of the films of the Cornetto trilogy ("A zombie named Sean", "Like cool cops", "Armageddon"), the atmosphere of hopelessness was more palpable. It was as if Wright was trying to sit on two chairs at once. And you can't offend the classics in the face of the 87th film, and you can't give King credit. Given that Wright can believe in both unbridled fun and a thriller ("Last Night in Soho"), I personally would like to see a more focused version of the story, no matter which way he leans. This is probably my main complaint, although it is not the only one. The tempo sometimes drops in the middle. This is about non-stop action. The main character suspiciously often feels quite calm, considering that, firstly, he survives for 30 days, and, secondly, he travels around the country. Variety seems to be present, but not wow. Apparently, the bleak landscapes of Scotland or wherever in Britain Wright shot location shots have an effect.

"Can you run fast?"
- It's getting faster every time.

Otherwise, "The Running Man" is quite watchable. Wright tries to fill the rather standard bleak dystopian world of the future with humor, visual and textual. I was amused by the local Netflix (which Wright obviously has a grudge against) with the ever-spinning analogue of the reality show about the Kardashians, I laughed a lot from the portrait of Schwartz on Novobucks. And the lion's share of the film is, of course, Glen Powell in the title role. Powell is such a new Harrison Ford. Charming and always with a sly squint. Even though I didn't believe the phrase from the movie: "If you win, then anyone will win" - his character is too perfect, but in principle, I'm happy for the man - finally a full-fledged main role in a blockbuster (apparently failed). And he's trying to be more serious than usual. Colman Domingo ("Fear the Walking Dead") was also pleased as the host. He had a sudden vibe from Eddie Murphy. Well, a single tear flowed when I saw Michael Cera. It's been-it's scary to say-16 years since the premiere of "Scott Pilgrim."

In general, the film left a pleasant and light impression. And I repeat once again, last year was a success for both Stephen King and his alter ego Richard Bachman in terms of good adaptations. It's not perfect, but you can enjoy watching it at least once.

RATING: 4 running tom Cruise out of 5

Contrary to popular belief, I managed to rest. It was interesting from time to time.

It's a rare hat for me.