The Running Man (2025).

Review #2471: The Running Man (2025).

Cast: 

Glen Powell (Ben Richards), Josh Brolin (Dan Killian), Colman Domingo (Bobby "Bobby T" Thompson), Lee Pace (Evan McCone), Michael Cera (Elton Parrakis), Emilia Jones (Amelia Williams), William H. Macy (Molie Jernigan), Daniel Ezra (Bradley Throckmorton), Jayme Lawson (Sheila Richards), Alyssa and Sienna Benn (Cathy Richards), Katy O'Brian (Jenni Laughlin), Karl Glusman (Frank), Martin Herlihy (Tim Jansky), Sean Hayes (Gary Greenbacks), David Zayas (Richard Manuel), and Sandra Dickinson (Victoria Parrakis) Directed by Edgar Wright (#971 - Baby Driver, #1537 - Shaun of the Dead, #2408 - Scott Pilgrim vs. the World)

Review: 

“It’s clear, having done test screenings, that there are people who have neither read the book nor seen the 1987 film. But when it first came to me, I wasn’t interested in doing a remake of the film because there wasn’t any sort of reason to do that. I think the reason to remake a film is if there’s something else in the material. So it was never going to be a scene-for-scene literal remake. It was always, in our heads, a new adaptation of the source material.”

You might remember that The Running Man was originally a novel before being churned into the moviemaking circuit. Stephen King, under the pseudonym Richard Bachman, originally wrote the novel in 1982 as a paperback original. It was set in the year 2025 in which a dystopian America has a government-operated TV station that has shows fit for public consumption in violence that included "The Running Man", where one has to survive 30 days from any opportunistic person and a group of killers to go along with having to send in messages every day. Apparently, the book featured the contestants getting $100 an hour to stay alive and $100 for every cop or hunter they kill. King apparently wrote the work in the span of a week (as opposed to his process of writing pages-to-pages in a few months). The 1987 movie came about as the result of people who saw the idea of George P. Cosmatos or Andrew Davis to direct Christopher Reeve and said, nope, you're getting Paul Michael Glaser (past star of Starsky & Hutch and future director of Kazaam) directing Arnold Schwarzenegger, as written by Steven E. de Souza. There are a few beats in the movie that was pretty fun beneath the slashing to the literary material...because all one had to do was go through four game quads in three hours. Yep, just three hours while dealing with dudes that had the following: a hockey-themed killer, a dude on a chainsaw, an opera singing electric shooter and a flamethrower to go along with Richard Dawson having probably the time of his life as Killian (in the book, Killian is merely just the producer, not the actual host). Funny enough, a lawsuit came out not too long after the release of the film that accused the film of plagiarizing a 1982 French film Le prix du danger, which had been an adaptation of Robert Sheckley's 1958 short story “The Prize of Peril" (that story had a normal man faced with escaping murderers with the help of alleged good Samaritans, incidentally). Incidentally, the 2025 movie, in following certain beats of the book while having its own type of ending, was endorsed by King. Oh, and it is a movie where you can see Arnold Schwarzenegger on the $100 bill.

There will be people who just compare it to the 1987 movie (one that could alternatively be cited as being a fun action movie but also one you really can't take seriously) and basically not give this movie the fair shake it deserves. And damn it, this feels like one of those movies that deserves to have a following because it just wants to aim for slick entertainment in seeing both a dystopia built on illusions that probably aren't too different from our world (a nation built on suffering, maybe?). This would probably make a good double feature with the other King adaptation of this year in The Long Walk, with both movies having an ordinary guy choosing to participate in a deadly game where one just has to keep moving to survive because of their desperate situation. I found it interesting to present the game as being played not by ordinary Joes but instead "lazy" people that is in turn built up by the production team in its own form of staged high-scale drama while also having some time spent with a few oddballs to meet up with our Everyman. Powell does pretty well with the desperation required in making a hero that you could believe would jump into the pool of sharks in charm, although I suppose others will take their time to buy him as one who stumbles into being a folk hero of some sort. I enjoyed the push-and-pull of despair and hope you can get as the movie goes further on in one man's quest to simply help the people around him in a mostly familiar place of dystopia (read: not too far from now, because where does the bar go in reality TV crap after having people play games for money?) and a few enjoyable action beats.

Admittedly, the film doesn't have as much of a ham in an adversary as, well Richard Dawson, since Domingo is merely a figurehead of bombast while Brolin shows up from time to time in smarmy conviction to go along with a mostly faceless Pace (faceless boots of authority? Wonder where that came from). But it is nice to see them there to represent the spectacle (i.e., the boot on the neck of the public). You see a few guests along the way to roll along with Powell that make for a few interesting moments, mostly from Cera because of the amount of time you see with him in barely-contained paranoia. Admittedly, the film does nearly stumble at the climax, as if somehow the runtime (133 minutes) actually needed a bit more time to really breathe to make everything sink in. But I think it is the kind of ending I can forgive in the spirit of "I've liked what I have seen, so let it pass." As a whole, The Running Man is a ball of a time for those who just want to see a King work get its due with a few visceral moments of charm and bite to make for a solid popcorn movie at least one time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Sinners (2025).

Review #2367: Sinners.

Cast: 

Michael B. Jordan (Elijah "Smoke" and Elias "Stack"), Hailee Steinfeld (Mary), Miles Caton (Sammie Moore), Jack O'Connell (Remmick), Wunmi Mosaku (Annie), Jayme Lawson (Pearline), Omar Benson Miller (Cornbread), Li Jun Li (Grace Chow), Delroy Lindo (Delta Slim), Yao (Bo Chow), Lola Kirke (Joan), Peter Dreimanis (Bert), with Sam Williams (Jedidiah), and Buddy Guy. Written and Directed by Ryan Coogler (#760 - Creed and #1050 - Black Panther)

Review:

“This film is very much me. I love anything supernatural. I’m in. I like stories about communities, about neighborhoods, about archetypes. And I love period anything. So, when you layer those things together, that does it for me.”

It sure is interesting to have a horror movie where an actor gets to sink their teeth in playing multiple roles, isn't it? This is the fifth feature film from Ryan Coogler, who had made his debut as a filmmaker with Fruitvale Station (2013) that incidentally had Michael B. Jordan as the lead (that film dealt with the shooting of Oscar Grant). Apparently, the time to make the movie from pitch to production in less than six months that had shooting on IMAX cameras; it is a co-production of Proximity Media, which I did not realize was founded a few years by the Cooglers. It was after the press tour of the second Black Panther film (2022) had ended that saw Coogler come up with the premise, in which spending time resting with Blues music reminded him of his uncle from Mississippi, stating that listening to the music felt like a way to try and bring him back to life, in a sense. After a bidding war ended with Warner Bros. distributing it, the movie was shot in roughly three months last year for apparently over $90 million and had the pleasure of not being delayed so one could theoretically watch it on Easter weekend (and, for whatever reason, in 25 years Coogler will have the rights to the film reverted to him).

Really the movie is more about community and family than just a straight vampire movie, although From Dusk till Dawn (1996) comes to mind (well, the idea of vampires having a certain type of link reminds me of Vampires [1998], but you can argue with me later). The enjoyment of the movie comes from seeing the gradual peeling of familiar layers in a slow boil of 137 minutes (complete with a certain surprise in its credits), although it probably helps to go into it with as little knowledge as possible. Sure, knowing it has vampires sure is something, because, well, don't be mad that a movie with vampires has vampires, but there is an attempt to have a worthwhile period adventure that has accompanying music for a fusion that does lend for a entertaining atmosphere. Sure, it probably is a bit too long when trying to wrap its ending up, but it will make a solid movie to at least pop in one time if you're into it. It is a movie that shows salvation with the power of making choices for oneself, which in this case means the power of music for one's soul.* The decisions made at the end of the movie are about choices made willingly without settling as some sort of "escape". The film has two actors to hold the movie in viewing the lines of music, power, and some sort of faith: Jordan and Caton (the son of gospel singer Timiney Figueroa, making his debut). Jordan gets a role that might as well be one for a lifetime: playing two folks with their distinct levels of charm within the veneer of tragedy that clearly has shaped them. It isn't merely a gimmick, he manages to make the twins distinct people that are interesting to see in their urges play out (sure, the first half of the film does split them up so one can see distinct interactions, but you get the idea). Caton plays the coming-of-age-turned-survival role with no shakiness, which means a good deal of energy and timing, particularly since it involves the blues that he handles with useful presence that doesn't fade in the background with such a stacked cast. Steinfeld** plays it generally well with the confidence that comes in sorrow that is rooted in love even when the time comes for, well, vampire glee in the eyes. Truthfully, the highlight in the supporting cast is Lindo, who is given a pretty familiar character type in "lovable drunk" that he handles with warmth that makes you smile each time he pops up on screen, although Mosaku makes a go at it with earthy presence when paired with Jordan. O'Connell makes a fine adversarial presence, one that manages to achieve some of the qualities that basically plays it as if vampirism could be its own type of religion or cult that could be an escape from problems (read: Mississippi, October 1932), complete with knowing one's memories as if it was in their own blood. It probably isn't as defined as much as it could be to really make this more than "pretty good", but the pursuit of music and "community" is interesting enough to hold the movie's second half to a certain point. The movie gets wrapped up with tidiness that wants to make it so things are pretty sealed up with each of its three characters that will leave the viewer with general satisfaction (whether it needed a certain beat to happen though is up to the viewer) with the choices that are made willingly in the name of, well, love. As a whole, Sinners is the kind of movie with commitment and energy to its subject matter of Deep South, blues, and blood that might deserve further watches down the line for what it brings to the table in style and charm.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.***

*Noted president of the Josh Allen Fan Club, among other things. Sorry, I couldn't resist, although I'll give you a link anyway.

**Okay, I will admit that the music montage...is one I had to step out in the middle of it happening because I had to pee, but I imagine that might be the standout sequence for some people.

***Correction time. On the previous review of The Family Jewels, a clerical error (i.e. idiot mistake) has now been fixed, in which that movie is a 6/10 rather than the 7/10 I accidentally scribbled first. Also, with Sinners, it is more of a 8.5/10 but I'm not sure whether to actually go with .5 ratings yet, and it seemed best to round up and maybe come back to it later.

The Batman.

Review #1814: The Batman.

Cast: 

Robert Pattinson (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Zoë Kravitz (Selina Kyle / Catwoman), Paul Dano (Edward Nashton / Riddler), Jeffrey Wright (Lieutenant James Gordon), John Turturro (Carmine Falcone), Peter Sarsgaard (Gil Colson), Andy Serkis (Alfred Pennyworth), Colin Farrell (Oswald "Oz" Cobblepot / Penguin), Jayme Lawson (Bella Reál), Gil Perez-Abraham (Officer Martinez), Peter McDonald (Officer William Kenzie), Alex Ferns (Commissioner Pete Savage), Con O'Neill (Chief Mackenzie Bock), Rupert Penry-Jones (Mayor Don Mitchell Jr) Directed by Matt Reeves (#1038 - Cloverfield)

Review: 

“I’ve always felt that the Batman story was a very special story. He’s not really a superhero. He’s someone who’s driven by the pain of his past. He’s trying to find some way to make sense of his life. It’s a very psychological story. This is the character I relate to most.”

I understand there were folks who doubted that Robert Pattinson could be the character of Batman because of some old movies from the mid 2000s or something. Well, one wonders just how ridiculous that sounds when compared to the minority of folks who decried at the casting of Michael Keaton for the title role in 1989 because of some old movies from the mid 1980s. But we have moved on from films that were influenced by comic books like The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight Returns to films that are influenced by comic books such as Batman: Year One (1987), The Long Halloween (1996-97), and "Ego" (I read two of those stories quite a few years ago, incidentally). But you likely know of those comic books if you are interested in seeing another Batman film. After all, there have now been nine actors to have portrayed the character in film (live action and animated) since 1966. They all have had distinct perspectives when it comes to depicting the character often called the "Caped Crusader", and one can certainly find something to appreciate from each and every director that was behind it, whether that was Leslie H. Martinson, Tim Burton, or Christopher Nolan. You may remember that it has been a couple of years since the last Batman film in live-action - ten years, in fact. I'm sure you know that Ben Affleck appeared as the character in three films (one cameo), and he intended to direct and write a standalone film which apparently was described as "almost James Bond-ian" slate for filming in 2017. However, by that year, Affleck would step away from the director's chair and later would step away from starring in the film (of course, five years ago the DC Extended Universe was vastly different from now); incidentally, there are plans of a Batgirl film in 2022 that has its own cast in mind for the key roles. Reeves would be tapped to direct in 2017 with his own script, with an initial target for June of 2021 for release (we all know how that worked out). Reeves and Peter Craig received credit for the script, which had some un-credited work from Mattson Tomlin. Reeves is best known for directing both Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) and War for the Planet of the Apes (2017).

Honestly, comparing what is the best Batman is a curious thing, because I'm sure most folks haven't seen every Batman-related piece of media (comics, TV, film), but I will maintain that my favorite generally falls between either the Animated Series or the 1966 television series (the Nolan films with their grounded take narrowly edge out the gothic Burton films). Regardless of one's favorite, I'm sure you can find something to like here within the great myth of Batman. One can add Reeves to the list of capable directors behind a Batman movie. In fact, this film might actually rank in the top section of Batman films, one that creates plenty of atmosphere within its comic book trappings and noir ambitions that makes a distinct narrative that turns upon vengeance and hope to deliver a relatable piece of entertainment with bleak and ambitious aim that works quite well for the current age without becoming too absorbed. Pattinson does a splendid job as Batman, one still fairly green in terms of being the "World's Greatest Detective" that is basked in desperation. He makes a great imperfect interpretation of the role because of the fact that he just isn't who he thinks he is. Instead of a Batman movie with the usual trimmings and a considerably more memorable villain, it is more balanced this time around. In other words: he has the layers required to drive the film. Kravitz and her graceful charm work well when paired with Pattinson and their palpable chemistry that drive the film at times with great interest. Dano does just fine for a role that I wish I could agree with more, playful in terror. No, I don't mean I yearn for a villain that is agreeable. But it is a strange quality to wonder why one would think "Riddler" and "Zodiac Killer" in the same sentence, because the Riddler just seems more of a compulsive puzzler man rather than a serial killer (Reeves had the serial killer aspect early in the script). I just don't find the character to be anything other than just "fine" (him and his terrifying 500 followers, I kid, I kid), and it is probably not the easiest thing to say that the most memorable Riddler portrayed in film is still Frank Gorshin after half a century. At least one could be curious to see if Dano would ever appear in further features, but I just hope that any further films find something useful to cover within reflecting the title hero, such as maybe Mr. Freeze or the Mad Hatter (i.e. not just the Joker, because that character is overplayed). Wright and Serkis both prove well in their moments spent playing against Pattinson in the familiar roles that engage well without running into comparisons of the past. Farrell does quite fine with a role half-covered in the shadows that shows the seeds of ruthlessness that could be apparent in further times without becoming desperate. Turturro creeps through the film with the right touch of oozy decadence. The last thing I want to mention is the music by Michael Giacchino, who weaves a capable film score with a title theme that has managed to stick in my head a few days later (of course Reeves could also get credit for his use of "Something in the Way", because who doesn't want a fitting song from Nirvana in a Batman film?).

Honestly, I figured the run-time would not be too much of a problem. 176 minutes is just about right for the kind of sprawling curiosity that Reeves has for depicting the duality of seeking justice without becoming a bloated mess (besides, going "it could have been edited down" is not exactly a valid response). The film does have noir aspirations, but it also finds time for dazzling action sequences alongside tinges of horror that generally do well without becoming off-kilter. It manages to capture most of what has proved interesting to say about the character of Batman within a story of seeing both sides of the coin in exacting justice with certain force. It leaves one curious for what can occur further within this type of storytelling in film without begging deeply for it. It isn't perfect, but it doesn't need to be when it comes to the task of showing the character of Batman in a way that seems fresh and relevant, which it does quite well.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: As noted before, it is Wings (1966), the Soviet classic.