The Running Man (1963)

Interesting plot, but the movie is marred by an over-stretched middle. Airplane pilot Rex (Harvey) is outraged by insurance company refusal to payoff his accident even though their refusal is his own fault. So he contrives his death for an even bigger payoff, and then absconds to southern Spain with the money and wife Stella (Remick). Unfortunately, insurance man Stephen (Bates) suddenly shows up at their Spanish hotel, claiming he's quit the insurance business and has a new job. However, is he telling the truth or is he actually investigating Rex's scam while undercover.Finding out Stephen's true status creates considerable interest. He acts so ingenuous that it's hard to think he's hiding anything. But then, can it be just coincidence that he turns up so soon in the same place as the insurance scammers. Then too, the big payoff money has changed Rex's personality for the worse, and now Stella's losing affection for him. Besides, Stephen's so nice, she's beginning to feel an attraction. But shouldn't she be careful since his winning personality may simply be the false front of a clever insurance investigator. Things do get complicated, but the central question remains— is Stephen really the nice ex-insurance guy he appears to be.Now, I think the movie handles this device quite effectively down to the rather ambiguous ending. To me, the balance of evidence indicates Stephen is in fact who he says he is. But since the movie leaves that central question with no definitive resolution, it's still possible to take him as an undercover investigator the whole time. Thus, the movie leaves you with a few points to ponder.My one complaint is with the drawn-out cat and mouse between Rex and Stephen as Rex tries to determine who Stephen really is. It goes on too long and is too talky and static. That middle part badly needs tightening up. Probably, the producers wanted to get their money's worth out of the Gibraltar location and all the local color, like the bullring. Then too, Harvey was just a couple of years past his Oscar drawing power for Room at the Top (1959). So his part is likely padded. One thing for sure, he's very good at being dislikable; at the same time Remick is very good at being sweetly myopic.All in all, it's a good movie that holds interest, plus leaving a few points to consider afterward, even if director Carol Reed is not up to top form.

Who was first in this "suspense" genre? Was it Carol Reed or Alfred Hitchcock? In "Running Man" Carol Reed uses much the same formula as Hitch. Music? Yes, well. The bloke with a problem? Sure. The very pretty blonde? Of course. That was the James Bond movies, too. In the end, who cares? Get a good story - yes, it was a good story - and get a good cameraman, and you are home and hosed. So my bias is showing. An Australian cinematographer of renown, even an Aussie, John Meillon as the walk-on rich sheep farmer who loses his identity. A weak point that. Without a passport, how was he to travel? The accents. John Meillon's normal voice is educated Australian. What on earth persuaded him to adopt an exaggerated Ocker accent? I mean, rich Aussie sheep farmers, if anything, will often adopt a plummy "received" accent. And Laurence Harvey. Where were all the voice coaches? "Running Man" was a fair attempt at the suspense genre. But it did not ever have me on the edge of the seat. When I first saw it nearly 60 years ago, I was looking for the great camera work. I think one aerial sequence has been cut for the TV version. It was superb.

Had "The Running Man" not been a Carol Reed film, I might have enjoyed it more. One has a certain expectation that goes with a name. Here, however, the result is disappointing.Lee Remick plays Stella Black, a widow who isn't one. Her husband Rex (Laurence Harvey), angry that his insurance company didn't pay a claim for 20,000 pounds, decides to get back at them by playing dead. As his widow, Stella is due to collect a good deal of money. The couple makes a plan to meet in Spain after she gets the settlement.When Stella arrives, Rex is now blond and an Australian named Jim Jerome, and he's totally into the subterfuge. Stella feels somehow unable to connect with him. Then she's spotted by the insurance agent (Alan Bates) who questioned her after Rex's "death." Both she and Rex are convinced that he's after them - he writes in a little book, seems suspicious of Rex, and asks a lot of questions. Then Stella realizes that Rex is also planning on killing off Jim Jerome - and she panics.The scenery in the film is stunning, and the acting by this fine cast is very good, though the only truly strong role belonged to Laurence Harvey. I don't agree with one of the other comments - I didn't find him particularly likable. The Bates character is much more likable. Rex doesn't have much regard for what Stella wants or needs.As far as any plot twist, some of this film was fairly predictable.All in all, for this writer, the film seemed remote and didn't draw me in.

About as bad as any British movie can ever get -- and that's saying something -- 'The Running Man' is a 1933 opus with the wrong production date attached.Formulaic, pedestrian, and so Britishly twee, it's also notable for the screen's first display of acute anorexia (when Harvey strips off to go swimming in the sea.)But there is a reason to go to the trouble of seeing this movie, and it's this: 'The Running Man' is a perfect illustration of why the vogue for attributing everything in a movie to the director is, was, and always will be fallacious (blame the French: they're responsible for starting it all).Reed demonstrated his brilliance -- or so we are led to believe -- with The Third Man. Here, he demonstrates what an utter klutz he could be behind the camera.The fact is, when you have a superb Director of Photography, brilliant script, Grade A actors and a wonderful music score (as in The Third Man) then chances are, the film will a success.When you have none of that, and only the director to fall back on, chances are the film will be 'The Running Man'.Another IMDb entry meriting minus 10 out of 10, but for scoring purposes, an overly generous. . . 1.