Hank Malone (Alan Ritchson) and Ben (Owen Wilson) crouching by a car
Film review

Runner

2026 · Directed by Scott Waugh · 1h 37m · MTRCB R-13

In a sentenceAlan Ritchson and Owen Wilson bicker while the car stunts do most of the work

A delivery becomes a race against time, with a life at stake and no room for delay. Alan Ritchson plays Hank Malone and Owen Wilson plays Ben in this action-comedy thriller, directed by Scott Waugh from a screenplay by Tommy White and Miles Hubley. Rodrigo Santoro appears as Damian Zaldivar, while Leila George and Scarlett Crabtree play Kate and Ellie Baker. The cast also includes Kate Box as Dr Ainsley, Peta Sergeant as Nurse Julie and Adriana Barraza as Donna. Getting the delivery through is the task; tomorrow is too late.

Plays from YouTube when you press play; nothing loads from them until then.

Fi1m review

Alan Ritchson and Owen Wilson are good company, and the car stunts deliver. But Scott Waugh’s uneven action comedy struggles to make its jokes, violence and sentiment belong in the same film.

Runner has enough good car stunts and companionable bickering to make its failings a nuisance, but not enough to earn a recommendation. Scott Waugh is attempting a brisk action comedy with a delivery deadline, two leads who can spar and a life at stake. At 97 minutes, that sounds like a manageable evening’s work. The trouble is how often the film stops being enjoyable while trying to become more exciting, funnier or more affecting.

Alan Ritchson gives Hank Malone a presence the writing has not quite earned, and Owen Wilson makes a useful partner as Ben. Their exchanges are the most dependable source of humour, even when the material is doing little beyond setting up another disagreement. We can enjoy their company for a scene without learning much about either man. Writers Tommy White and Miles Hubley seem content to let the casting handle that, which works until the action pauses and the characters have to sustain our interest.

We enjoyed the car stunts, which supply the clean excitement the rest of the film keeps interrupting. Lorenzo Senatore’s cinematography shares the credit for these passages, where moving vehicles give the action a force that the fights struggle to match. Ritchson can hold our attention, but physical presence alone does not make every confrontation exciting. Waugh is at his most convincing when he lets the stunts do the work, without asking a joke or an appeal for sympathy to accompany them.

Matt Villa’s editing is less successful at keeping the whole film moving than the individual action passages suggest it ought to be. The middle stretch lingers over people the screenplay has not made interesting enough, and momentum dwindles between the confrontations. The bickering cannot fill every gap. A chase film needs us wondering what might happen next, and too often we are merely waiting for somebody to get on with it.

The violence causes a separate problem for Waugh, because its severity makes the comic interruptions feel careless. We are asked to laugh before the ugliness has had time to settle, then to accept sentiment from characters who have mostly been useful for action and jokes. Charlie Nguyen Kim supplies the music and Enzo Iacono the production design, but neither contribution can solve that problem in the script. The film has not given its people enough substance to make the changes of mood convincing.

Action comedies do not need elaborate biographies, and asking this one for solemn realism would miss the point. They do need the humour to keep us interested in the people being hurt, rather than make their pain seem disposable. Ritchson and Wilson occasionally manage that through sheer rapport, which is why the film remains watchable despite its stumbles. If car stunts are the main attraction, there is something here for a forgiving evening; anyone coming for a fully functioning double act should choose elsewhere.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

56
Positive
4
Mixed
3
Negative
3

The reviews lean mildly positive but split almost evenly across the scale, and the praise clusters in one place: Alan Ritchson. Most critics find him the reason to stay, and several note his chemistry with Owen Wilson, though HeyUGuys thinks Wilson is underused. The action earns credit too, particularly the car stunts and a few forcefully staged set pieces, and more than one reviewer enjoys the human-organ MacGuffin and the pace.

The reservations gather around the script and the tone. Thin plotting, underdeveloped characters and an ending Radio Times calls a cheat come up repeatedly, and several critics find the gore sits awkwardly beside the comedy and the reaches for sentiment. The spread is wide: The Wrap credits director Scott Waugh with balancing all three, while RogerEbert.com finds the film abrasive, illogical and no fun at all. The Telegraph goes further on pacing, with a middle act that dawdles and a hospital climax that exhausts.

Variety
8 September 2026 · Todd Gilchrist
71*

The critic finds the action thriller passable and entertaining thanks to its efficient runtime and the chemistry between leads Alan Ritchson and Owen Wilson, but notes it feels like middle-tier fare hampered by thin plotting and some cheap production values.

Read the full review →
Empire
11 September 2026 · Helen O’Hara
70*

O’Hara finds the film enjoyable, serviceable action entertainment that succeeds through pace and effectively delivered mayhem. She singles out its inspired human-organ MacGuffin and the crunchy kills, while noting its familiar character dynamic.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
8 September 2026 · Adrian Horton
68*

The critic finds the film silly but entertaining, with its action-camp sensibility winning over its attempts at emotional sincerity. They praise the inventive, forcefully staged stunts and action sequences.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
3 September 2026 · C · Simon Abrams
57

The critic views it as a mostly forgettable action programmer buoyed by Ritchson’s star presence and a few thrilling car stunts, but hampered by unremarkable fight scenes, underdeveloped characters, and a script that fails to make the leads compelling when not in action.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
2 September 2026 · Frank Scheck
55*

The critic finds it a propulsive and relentless buddy thriller with impressive action sequences and strong chemistry between Ritchson and Wilson, but notes that the ultra-violent mayhem clashes with comic touches and leaves a bad aftertaste, with some unearned emotional elements.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
2 September 2026 · ★★ · Matt Glasby
40

The critic finds the high-concept thriller entertaining enough in stretches but undermined by a script that breaks its own rules and an ending that feels like a cheat. Background details capturing London's kinetic energy are singled out as the strongest element.

Read the full review →

Straight answers AI written, from our review

Is Runner worth watching?
Runner is worth watching only if car stunts are the main attraction, and we scored it 56. Alan Ritchson and Owen Wilson are good company, and the chases supply clean excitement, but Scott Waugh's film keeps interrupting itself with jokes and sentiment it has not earned. Anyone wanting a fully working double act should look elsewhere.
How long is Runner, and what is it rated?
Runner runs 1h 37m and is rated R-13 by the MTRCB in the Philippines. It is an action and comedy film.
Where can I watch Runner in the Philippines?
Runner is not on any streaming or rental service in the Philippines at the moment. It is available in 1 other country; change your country at the top of the page to see where. Availability is checked daily.
How violent or frightening is Runner, and is it suitable for children?
Runner carries a UK 15 certificate, and its violence is severe enough that the comic interruptions feel careless, so it is not suitable for children. The fights and confrontations are frequent, and the film asks us to laugh before the ugliness has settled. Older teenagers used to action films should manage; the squeamish may not.
How does Runner compare to Midnight Run?
Runner is the weaker film, and Midnight Run is the one to choose if you can only watch one. Both pair two bickering men on a pursuit, but Martin Brest lets his pair's quarrelling develop into affection, while Scott Waugh's leads spar without our learning much about either. Runner has the better car stunts; Midnight Run has the better company.
What should I watch after Runner?
After Runner, try Midnight Run (1988, Fi1m 88): A bickering pair whose growing affection gives the pursuit a proper purpose. Then The Wages of Fear (1953, Fi1m 90): For a delivery thriller that makes every mile feel physically dangerous; and A Hard Day (2014, Fi1m 79): A Korean thriller with black humour and steadily worsening practical problems.

Cast

If you liked this, try…

  1. Midnight Run (1988, Fi1m 88)A bickering pair whose growing affection gives the pursuit a proper purpose.

  2. The Wages of Fear (1953, Fi1m 90)For a delivery thriller that makes every mile feel physically dangerous.

  3. The Transporter (2002) · not reviewed yetA delivery job, clear action and a lead who needs little dialogue.

  4. A Hard Day (2014, Fi1m 79)A Korean thriller with black humour and steadily worsening practical problems.

  5. The Nice Guys (2016) · not reviewed yetTwo mismatched men, better jokes and enough character to sustain the chaos.

Free account

Know what to watch tonight

Two lists that know where things are streaming, collections you can share, your own score beside ours, and Discover that remembers what you have seen.

  • Want to see, sorted by what is streaming now
  • Seen, with your score out of ten
  • No adverts, ever