Reviewed by Colin Jacobson (January 18, 2026)
Across their storied careers, actor Arnold Schwarzenegger and novelist Stephen King only crossed professional paths one time. This occurred with 1987’s action/sci-fi effort The Running Man, based on a novel King penned under the name “Richard Bachman”.
Circa 2017, the world economy exists in tatters and the US becomes a fascist military nation sealed off from the rest of the world. In this dystopian setting, criminals can either serve their sentences or attempt to avoid prison via a TV game show called The Running Man.
If the “contestants” can survive violent pursuers, they go free. Framed for a crime he didn’t commit and blackmailed by series creator Damon Killian (Richard Dawson) to participate, former cop Ben Richards (Schwarzenegger) goes down this route and attempts to use his brawn and wits to stay alive.
In 1987 – or in 1982, when King’s novel first appeared – all that sounded like sci-fi fantasy. In 2026, not so much.
Indeed, one can easily believe that Donald Trump would hear this idea and decide to make it reality. Plenty of other parts of Man seem accurate circa 2026, so why not go all the way?
But enough comment on the state of the US in 2026. The main question here becomes whether or not Man succeeds as action/sci-fi/satire.
Not really. While Man doesn’t flop, it also never lives up to its potential.
I guess audiences felt the same way, as Man disappointed at the box office. Though touted as a major blockbuster, the movie wound up in 30th place on the US chart for 1987 releases, 18 spots behind Schwarzenegger’s considerably more successful Predator.
Given that this era probably represented the peak of popularity for both Schwarzenegger and King, it comes as a surprise that an effort that involved both sputtered with film fans. I suspect the biggest reason the movie failed to live up to its hype stemmed from its director.
50 years after he became a star for his character on TV’s Starsky and Hutch, Paul Michael Glaser remains most famous for that role. Though he obviously broadened into feature direction, his time as a television detective still exists as his primary claim to fame.
Glaser directed five movies from 1986 to 1996, and not a single one became a hit. Indeed, only Man found any kind of decent audience.
All of these showed Glaser to be a pedestrian director, and his lack of obvious cinematic talent becomes an issue with Man. While I won’t claim Glaser actively harms this film, he lacks the skill to give it the bite it needs.
From start to finish, Man comes across as a standard issue 1980s action flick without much to make it stand out from its peers. Yeah, the theme and satirical elements mean it shows the potential for something more barbed than the standard meatheaded fare.
As executed by Glaser, though, the end product fails to show real punch. It really needed a Paul Verhoeven or Terry Gilliam to pull off its satire well.
Of course, the lackluster script from Steven E. deSouza deserves some of the blame. Given he wrote screenplays for flicks like 1982’s 48 Hrs. and 1988’s Die Hard, deSouza obviously boasted talent.
However, a look at deSouza’s filmography reveals more clunkers than classics. Man shows a deSouza apparently on cruise control, as the script embraces 1980s action clichés.
Granted, perhaps deSouza did so intentionally as part of the satire. Maybe he wanted to parody the genre and mock it.
If so, deSouza failed. What he may’ve intended as spoof just comes across as standard 80s cheese.
The Running Man stands as a strong example of a mediocre 1980s action flick. If you can think of a cliché of the era, you’ll probably find it here.
The movie presents mindless action with excessive violence that tends toward the cheap side of things. Bloodshed in this era’s movies gets tossed out in a very casual manner and occurs with easy abandon, and we see much of that in Man.
It also presents the broad comedy that typifies the era. No action can come without a punchline, and these gags usually involve aggression of some sort.
To be sure, violence in movies has been around a long time, and it ain’t going anywhere anytime soon. Nor should it – violence is part of life.
But never did movies toss out that sort of material with such cynical abandon as during the 1980s. Man distinctly demonstrates those tacky excesses.
Cynicism manifests itself in many ways during Man, most of which feel like cheap gags. We learn that the Department of Justice now has an “Entertainment Division” and Richards gets a court-appointed theatrical agent. The film tries to be incisive and witty but just seems dopey for the most part.
Not that it didn’t have potential. Indeed, that’s what sets Man apart from other action flicks of the era.
Like Predator, Man enjoys a very cool concept. Also like Predator, unfortunately, it fails to live up to its potential.
The idea of the life-or-death game show isn’t tremendously original, but Man gives it a new spin. It simply doesn’t manage to do anything creative in any other way beyond its source material.
The movie’s lack of real personality becomes its greatest flaw. Man never truly flops, and it manages to manifest occasional fits of entertainment.
However, it never seems remotely special. Mostly it comes across as loud and obnoxious without much else to it.
Footnote: the film includes a comical end credits tagline. You may want to stick around through the flick’s conclusion to hear this.
