by Flightsuit
Never mind the fact that they changed so many details that it's not even the same story, not by a long shot.
They changed it just enough so they wouldn't have to pay any Royalties!
Gimli: You'll find more cheer in a graveyard.

No dude, YOU watch crappy movies because you think they're good, WE watch them because we think they're unintentionally funny as hell.

I believe the purpose of this critique stems from some sort of inferiority complex. The O.P. Isn't strong in the intellect department, so he picks out little things from a film made in the 80's to prove to himself and others that he's not a candidate for Darwinism. I meanwhy attack a film from a few decades ago, knowing that these films are no more than junk food for the Mind. Unless the O.P. Actually took this film that seriously.

I respectfully disagree. I like the lack of realism and the cheesy 80's take on the future. It would be nice if they ever decide to make a film that is more like the book though.
It's been over a decade since 9/11 so I think America should be able to handle seeing an airplane fly into a building in a movie.
Whether or not to have the protagonist call Killian the N-word in the movie is not a decision to be taken lightly though.
"There is no escape, John!"

You forgot to mention that the guards all had gas masks that didn't seem to protect them from anything, since the prisoners didn't have them and were able to to speak/work/run/fight/steal guns/operate computers/survive.

Certain movies just have a special place in your heart sometimes. I was a big Arnold fan as a kid, even though I'm female lol. And thinking back on those movies takes me back to being a kid and fun times.

Hell yeah!

I also read the book and although it is quite different they still both stand on their own merits. That is, of course, my opinion.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

This movie was great during the time it came out. I haven't read the original Running Man story but it sounds like a similar case to the Lawnmower Man. Nothing like the original story at all. But the concept of this movie seems a lot better than most of the sci-fi movies that Hollywood has dished out in recent times.

This film is excellent provided that you watch it purely as an OTT comedy. Attach any sort of serious intent to it and it turns into a pile of do-do.

This was and still is a great movie. Anyone who says otherwise has 20 cats. Stephen King is still a great writer. Anyone who says otherwise wears a comb in their back pocket.
Period.

I enjoy this movie for what it is. They changed so much that it really should have been re-named to something else.
I would be first in line for an accurate adaptation of the original Bachman Book, including the non-Hollywood ending. Better yet, let HBO make a mini-series out of it.
The book is so good. The Long Walk is great too but I don't think that would translate well to movie/TV.

This message has been deleted.

"..second by Commando"
What do you mean by that? Do you mean to say "seconded by Commando", or "seconded only by Commando"?
Do you ever think what you are saying, or do you just spew words that seem to have a similar meaning or sound the same to you?
Anyways, I wouldn't go as far as consider this movie 'awful'.
I'd say that it's more like "unnecessary".
It doesn't offer the viewer anything he hasn't seen many times before already, it's extremely predictable, and all the potentially interesting stuff (the depiction of the future dystopia - how many such depictions do we need, anyway? Can't the future be happy for a change?) has been done much better in other movies already.
Basically, this movie is just a "poor man's Robocop", and even Robocop isn't all that great (it's kind of childish and boring at times, and filled with improbabilities - why would anyone remain alive after their body has been shot to pieces, and why would moving a physical brain from a skull to a robotic body mean that the soul incarnates in that robotic body, without a functional chakra-meridian system to keep it in place? I mean, where does the 'silver cord' attach to, and so on..? When the body ceases to function, the incarnation ends, no matter what you do to the brain (in fact, it can end even before anything is done to the body - sometimes the divine mercy lifts the soul out of the body -before- the body-mangling-accident happens. For example, you might find yourself diving off a cliff, and then realize you are falling 'upwards' instead of 'downwards', because it's not necessary for you to go through the trauma of the accident - your body would be dead anyway, so you can be transported from your body a few seconds earlier to spare you). It would be better if the soul was transferred into the robot, not the brain - and if they addressed the whole chakra-meridian-issue. But then the question of 'what IS a cyborg' would actually be even more difficult to answer. By the way, according to an old dictionary, 'cybernetics' means that the prices rise faster than salaries).
So why watch this, if you can just watch Robocop and some other, better movies instead? If you want Arnold action, there's no beating The Terminator (1984), Commando, Predator and the like. If you want Arnold AND a dystopian future, Total Recall is miles better (though not without its own problems). Future dystopia has been utilized in so many movies, that this movie is just not offering anything.
It's like offering 'an ok-tasting' meal in a high-class restaurant, where delicious gourmet and 'umami' food is offered. Who needs that mediocre meal that doesn't even fill the stomach, if you can have really good and more fulfilling ones?
Unnecessary Poor Man's Robocop <- that's what I'd call this, instead of "awful". It's passable, and you can watch it, but it's just so lacking in every area that the better movies actually offer something better, that I can't see the need for anyone to ever watch it.
Except so that they can write posts like mine.

First off,
It's an Arnie flick. So please, let's just respect that.
Secondly, it has one the greatest one liners ever, second by Commando.
Thirdly, calm the F down with this Stephen King comparos, it's clearly loosely based and that shouldn't be a source of criticism. Total recall was also loosely based, but clearly is such a superior movie that it doesn't matter.
4th point. It's a 80's cheesefest with Arnie at the helm. What do you expect? At that time of release it was awesome and cool. And watching it now brings back memories. Clearly if you've never seen it when it was released, but rather now, then so much context is lost there is no wonder why this movie could be found so laughable and stupid; which it actually is. Then again, who cares, it's a fun ride.
Plus I've just watched recently and could find so many plot-holes that it isn't funny but then I remember, 80's cheese with Arnie.
That said, the movie is actually very frighteningly prophetic with its consumerism critique and slight satire. Climbing for dollars is not that far off Fear Factor .. And the digital imaging and CG use for character and actor replacements. Back then they actually shot that scene with Arnie fighting Jesse Ventura, but realistically today, if they needed to do this, it could be as easily obtained as it was shown in the movie. It's pretty creepy actually.
But, one of the biggest continuity issues are the camera angles in the helicopter. And the other one that always gets me is the FireBall fight. When he talks to the girl and tells her about the 'Last Season Winners', it fairly clear that it was on camera. After he blows up, we clearly see that the network has a direct shot Fireballs location. I can't really see how this conversation was not shown or heard as it is live.

I saw it in the theater when it was released and it's still good now.
To me, it's like all of Stephen King's books - they always are better in the movie version than the book version.
Regards,
Frank
"For every man who has ever lived, in this universe, there shines a star."
-Arthur C. Clarke

I know a lot of action films that I really enjoyed, but now I look back on and cringe. And it's because in my opinion action films don't age well. The one liners, the fight scenes, even the pyrotechnics. I watched The Running Man twice, about sixteen years apart. The first time it was great, while the second time it turned into a comedy. I still like the movie, just not for the same reasons. And if you're watching it for the first time, 25 years after the fact, of course it will be bad.

Mistake #1: Expecting a movie starring Arnie to be faithful to the book it was adapted from.
http://mo3del.ru/files/pic_models/spoilers.jpg

I agree, word for word. I even liked the book.

Great movie, not many people get it but alas not many people are intelligent.

beep brilliant classic arnie movie.

It's low budget, but I don't find the sets nearly as cheesy or cheap as many other 80s sci-fi movies. It still has a slick, appealing look. The movie only has a few locations and I really like the set design in this movie.
Regarding Arnie and Maria, I don't see the problem. During the course of the movie, both of them realized that there was more to each of them than meets the eye. She realized Richards was innocent and actually a do-gooder, and I think the fact that she helped him had to do with him beginning to like her. Not to mention that she's hot in this!