The Luckiest Man in America (2025) is directed by Samir Oliveros, who wrote the script alongside Maggie Briggs. It stars Paul Walter Hauser, David Strathairn, Walton Goggins, Shamier Anderson, Maisie Williams, Brian Geraghty, Patti Harrison, Ricky Russert, David Rysdahl, Shaunette Renee Wilson, James Wolk, Damian Young, Haley Bennett, and Johnny Knoxville.

The film takes place in 1984 and tells the true story of Michael Larson (Hauser), an unemployed ice cream truck driver, who, after countless failed auditions, is chosen to be a contestant on the popular game show, Press Your Luck (1983-2003). After a nervous start, Michael begins to win more money than anyone in the history of the show. The strange thing is that he continues to win, with seemingly no end in sight. This bewilders the show’s producers, who begin to worry that Michael’s outrageous success may cost them their jobs. Unable to prove any kind of illegal activity, they scramble to find a way to stop Michael before it’s too late. Realizing that he might just be truly skilled at the game, the producers are forced to reflect on the fact that thier attempts to stop Michael might expose them as the true cheaters.  

Paul Walter Hauser doesn’t deliver anything particularly new with this performance, but he does feel perfectly cast. Michael is the kind of awkward, larger-than-life goofball he’s made a career out of. He’s, for the most part, naturally able to transition from goofy to sympathetic. Michael is a character who lives in a world that’s more or less a carefully constructed lie, so when the walls of that reality begin to crumble, his emotions become strange and unstable, which Hauser portrays with the proper nuance. It also helps that the strong supporting cast takes some of the dramatic weight off his shoulders. 

As Press Your Luck’s charismatic host, Peter Tomarken, Walton Goggins is unsurprisingly great. The character doesn’t receive a ton of focus, but it works as an opportunity for Goggins to chew the scenery, which he mostly takes advantage of. Other additions, such as Brian Geraghty, Maisie Williams, and Shaunette Renee Wilson, are also enjoyable. Still, the standout is easily David Strathairn as the show’s head producer, director, and creator, Bill Carruthers. He displays a side of television elites that’s more human than we usually see, but still doesn’t shy away from how soullessly cutthroat they can typically be. By most measures, he’s the story’s villain, but he’s just a guy trying to save his job.

The script intelligently utilizes not only this scenario, but also human obsession with game shows in general (consider Mr. Beast as a modern example), as a microcosm of the American experience. For example, the script immediately establishes Michael as an underdog.  This country loves underdogs. We root for them to succeed because many of us are in similar scenarios (or have been in the past), but when it goes too far and they’re no longer like us, we turn against them. This raises many interesting questions about the nature of success and why we pursue it. There are the obvious financial benefits, but people also desire the admiration it provides. People don’t usually like underdogs – that’s one of the reasons why they’re considered underdogs, so they pursue success to prove everyone wrong. The problem is, success doesn’t actually change a person, so it really has no bearing on what other people think of them. Thus, they achieve success and are still disliked. The only time they’re not disliked is when they ascend. We often mistake the praise of a successful person’s ascent for praise of the individual. We assume people are rewarded for their morals, but time and time again, this country proves that’s simply not the case. I hate to be a pessimist, but in most cases, it’s safer to assume a successful person (I’m talking the top 1% here) is worthy of criticism. This is exemplified by Michael, who is primarily a dishonest criminal, yet still manages to achieve remarkable success. This goes even further with the producers, who, to maintain their jobs (success), attempt to hinder Michael with countless shady and immoral (but not quite illegal) strategies. If anything, these characters portray a bleak version of American capitalism, suggesting that the path to success entails a willingness to push one’s morals as far as they can without breaking the law. 

This then raises another question: is it truly immoral to pull a dishonest move on a dishonest individual? In most cases, I agree that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, but what if we live in a time that’s built around money, and the most efficient way to achieve it is through dishonest means? When we attribute success and even happiness to something external, such as money, we’ll seek to obtain that thing at all costs, even if that comes at the expense of what actually provides our lives with meaning: our chosen morality. Michael’s actions are only immoral depending on the scenario. Is it sinful to steal when you’re starving? Is it ok to cheat when everyone else is? What does God say about killing to survive? In some ways, he’s only doing what’s required to achieve what everyone wants. Are morals flexible or is the pursuit of what we desire, in itself, immoral? There is no easy answer, and I’m happy the script recognizes this.  

Like many people, I grew up watching game shows, so I enjoyed the film’s recreation of such an iconic program. The script spends a satisfying amount of time focusing on Michael playing the game, which works a lot better than I was expecting. Game shows are often inherently cinematic in their presentation, and this movie capitalizes on that. 

The script also provides some compelling interpersonal character drama, but there’s unfortunately one subplot that doesn’t work. There’s an element surrounding Shamier Anderson’s character that focuses on his struggle with racial bias in the workplace. I see how this relates to the script’s themes of achieving success in America, but it’s painfully on the nose compared to almost every other element. It’s okay to be on the nose with a theme that’s uncommon or complex, but racial themes are some of the most common, and the script doesn’t explore them deeply enough to provide any insight that feels fresh. 

Overall, this is a fairly basic “based on a true story” drama that’s competently produced, serviceably entertaining, but ultimately forgettable. Everything here is better than mediocre, but nothing stands out as particularly exciting or memorable. It features all the cliches of a proper character study, but Hauser and the flashy game show elements help keep the viewer engaged. The parallels to modern-day capitalism are fun to consider, but I just wish I cared more about the characters, especially Michael’s estranged family. There’s nothing particularly wrong with the film, but I also can’t recommend it. If you’re interested in the true story (which is a worthy one, in my opinion), give it a shot. Everyone else can skip it, but they also shouldn’t fret if they do find themselves about to press play. C+