Uciekinier

A dystopian ultra-B-movie about the entertainment of the mob, which Paul Michael Glaser allegedly didn’t imbue with the depth that King, writing as Bachman, put into it. No matter! We have a fabulous central musical motif reminiscent of Michel Colombier's "L'Alpagueur," just the right amount of superficially bitten themes of media manipulation of the masses, it charmingly doesn’t shy away from brutality, and it features Arnie's trademarks (the cigar, the promise of a return, something heavy over his shoulder, and a wooden acting performance) with a few steroid-laced quips landing on fertile ground. And although it was a second-rate spectacle, as an unprecedented bonus, the governor of Minnesota badly botches the governor of California! Please Stand By. (07.07.2020)

Even back in the day, I think The Running Man was seen as a cheesy yet entertaining B-movie, and today it’s even more so. It’s a pretty ridiculous premise, but with Arnold Schwarzenegger, it works. He knows exactly what to do in front of the camera — act tough and make the audience laugh. That’s pretty much how this one plays out. Watching it now also took me back to my childhood, when I first discovered and started to appreciate Arnold. I hadn’t seen this film until recently, so the nostalgia hit hard, and I ended up enjoying it. (19.08.2024)

The worst of all the Arnold Schwarzenegger films. I don't know what the screenwriter was on, but at the very least he was watching The Terminator, because the Resistance and "I'll be back" speak for themselves. An initially promising concept is destroyed by a pile of illogicalities, a bearded Arnold, and a hunting panopticon led by a Christmas tree. Madness to the nth degree, which the presence of the Austrian oak in the main role has made into an incomprehensible phenomenon. Having read Stephen King's suitably filthy, bleak, and brilliant source material, I hate this Paul Michael Glaser hacked adaptation all that much more intensely. (20.02.2006)

I love Bachman's novella and maybe that's why I avoided the film, which has nothing much in common with the book except the basic concept. The direction is lousy, but the 2017 dystopian future atmosphere has its charms and I completely understand its cult status. Arnold is in great form. The witty wisecracks and off-color humor may trump the message and turn it into brutal entertainment, but who gives a damn. Now, however, it might be the time to adapt it properly, according to the book, and in a way that makes the audience shudder at the end. (02.01.2024)

One of the highly controversial adaptations of Stephen King's literary work, which he published under the pseudonym Richard Bachman. The term "controversial" in this case does not necessarily mean bad, although it truly is, but rather contradictory to the spirit of the original novel. I have a feeling that even King himself could not have liked this adaptation, as he is otherwise masochistically accommodating toward the defilement of his work, selling rights without blinking an eye to even the biggest weirdos. Arnold Schwarzenegger does not resemble the novel's protagonist whatsoever. The world presented by Paul Michael Glaser does not resemble the King's, as in the novel the main character is a frightened little man who just wants to survive and uses his head - not muscles. That's not even mentioning the value aspect of the whole story. Moreover, the film doesn't even come close to the grandeur and sophistication of similar sci-fi movies like Total Recall. The ending is as awkward as a seizure of a person with epilepsy. So, all in all: I appreciated a few special effects and a few of the punches. Overall impression: 25%. (09.12.2007)