Rating: 
Summary: Well Constructed, Pretty Good Execution.
Review: This political drama profiles partisanship as it tears at democracy and the thought of a woman vice-president. The ending was supurbly written and executed, the remaining portions of the movie kept you involved particularly the confirmation hearings.
Rating: 
Summary: If you have to watch a political movie........
Review: This movie will keep you interested whether or not you like politics or not. For a 2+ hour film I only checked the clock once or twice during a few slow dialogues. Granted the ending is predictable and Joan Allen's character seems to go a bit too far defending her point, the movie is watchable. Rent it, don't buy it.
Rating: 
Summary: An interesting and provactive movie!
Review: An interesting movie that is worth watching. Especially if the world of politics intrigues you. This is a movie of you either love it or hate it. It will bring out your feelings of morality and possibly your feelings of partisanship. As a person who worked several years in politics and now in the entertainment industry, I have quite a few feelings about this movie. Let's start with the entertainment side. For a movie that stayed at the top for so long, the movie is very interesting and will capture your interest if you go in with an open mind. Controversial? For some people it might be but go in this movie with an open mind if possible. The acting is very well done and the things that play out in the political chess match of who is one up on the other is quite interesting. Last, if anything bothered me was more on the camera end of the shaking that went on during the discussion scene between the president and his men. This is merely me being picky but one scene made me question the way the shot was filmed. I'll have to listen to the director's commentary if there was anything on that. Probably not. Also, right after...there is this spot on the camera lens...anyway, again this is me being picky and I don't expect many people to pick up on or needle pick on things. What matters is the presentation and the storyline which is very well done. Now the political side. This is a movie that I enjoyed watching because it shows the ugly side of politics that many people don't see. The movie covered it well and I applaud Rod Lurie for having the ... to do this movie. For those who scoff at this, I'm sure perhaps there are good politicians that don't get involve in the dirty side of things right? The DVD is a gem. Not only do you get Digital 5.1 but you also get DTS. The DTS feature is alone to make you scream for joy but this is a dialogue movie. Sure you can hear the helicopters but this is a dialogue movie. Video is really nice as well. As for the special features, I haven't had the chance to watch the movie with the director's commentary but I'm sure having both Rod Lurie and Joan Allen commenting is a plus. The deleted scenes were well done and the commentary along with the scenes was a plus. The production notes on a DVD. I applaud Dreamworks for this. Why? Most companies feel they can put the notes inside the case ala a booklet. It's nice to have it on the DVD. Last, the featurette on the behind-the-scenes: The Making of a Political Thriller. What makes me enjoy this featurette was not that it was nearly half an hour long but also the various references of other popular political movies in the past. This making of is a definite bonus. All in all, a very interesting and good movie? Should it win "Best Picture of the Year"? I felt it was good movie but not great. Otherwise if you can have an open mind for over two hours, then give it a try. Try not to let your political beliefs distract you and shout blasphemy. Keep an open mind. As for the DVD as a whole, the movie and the special features is worthy enough to entertain you for several hours.
Rating:
Summary: Well-acted movie of political intrigue
Review: This film purports to show the gender bias in American politics. Is there a double standard by which men and women are judged? A valid question, but the viewer would probably understand the movie's premise without being hit over the head quite so hard. The plot centers on the confirmation hearings of a female Senator, played by Joan Allen, who has been nominated by the President (Jeff Bridges) to fill the unexpired term of the vice-president, who has recently died. In the course of the hearings the candidate undergoes character assassination, as arranged by the chairman of the committee. There are some parts of the plot which stretch credibility, such as the nominee's unwillingness to defend herself in the face of attacks on her moral character and the President storming into Congress to call for a vote before the hearings have been complete. The four stars come from the excellent acting by all the major players and from the fact that Bridges is such a charming rogue in the part of the President. In spite of its faults, this is a very entertaining movie.
Rating: 
Summary: What went wrong?
Review: So much talent, why such a horrible movie? I contribute the majority of it to director/writer Rod Lurie. This script's dialogue is about as slackjawed as The Phantom Menace, and the plot about as complex. There are so many talented actors wasted in this movie, I'm not surprised it failed miserably at the box office. In fact, the movie fails on so many levels, it makes it hard to identify exactly where this movie goes wrong. I felt extremely cheated -- this movie makes big promises -- especially on the cover of the video box, and it lives up to none of them. Anyone who would think this predictable piece of garbage is compared in scope and depth to All the President's Men -- needs to have their head examined. The only thing believable in the entire movie, is that the oval office looks pretty authentic. Aside from that, this movie is a complete joke. I never would have thought someone could follow-up the horrible "Deterrence" with an EVEN WORSE movie. This guy should have stuck to film reviews.
Rating:
Summary: Finally, the truth is out
Review: Finally, someone has made a movie that shows how low politicians will go to assasinate a character. The Contender is well-done, well-acted and hits upon a truth that will make most right-wingers cringe in their boots. It is gritty and extreme, not really letting you discover who the true heroes are, but blatantly displaying the evil-doers. Anyone who does not come away with a sense that they have been emersed in a Washington bloodletting are still living in Camelot. Everyone who wishes to see the political process brought into the light and the closet doors flung wide open should run to get this movie.
Rating:
Summary: One of the best political thrillers ever made!
Review: "What I say, the American people will believe, and do you know why? Because I'll have a very big microphone in front of me." This comes from the mouth of Congressman Shelly Runyon, one of the many characters in what is perhaps the most intriguing political thriller ever made, "The Contender," a film that captures so many of today's political and societal elements and behaviors that it becomes much more than just a movie, but a testimonial into the moral beliefs and traditional values of citizens and politicians alike. It focuses on a person's right to a personal life as well as that person's strength and ability to stick to them in a time when people run scared from their beliefs in the face of the possible consequences. The premise of the story begins with the president's search for a suitable candidate to fill the vacant vice president's position after his own running mate's death a few short weeks ago. His first initial choice is Governor Jack Hathaway, whose recent attempted rescue of a drowned woman have made him a hero in the eyes of a nation. But President Jackson Evans decides that he wants someone that American citizens will value for their beliefs, and not for heroics, and therefore rejects Hathaway for his choice candidate, Senator Laine Hanson, who is more than happy to fill the position. Being a Republican-turned-Democrat, Hanson is not liked by some, especially Shelly Runyon, who meets with the rejected Hathaway and lays out his plans of determination to bring down Hanson by delving into her past. He strikes pay dirt when he uncovers photographic evidence of Hanson being "gang-banged" by a college sorority group, and even though none of the photographs show her face outright, many witnesses appear to give their testimonial about the events of that evening, and not in Hanson's favor. As the hearings begin to determine whether or not she is a likely and qualified candidate for the position, the rumors begin to build, more witnesses arrive, but never does Hanson confess or deny the allegations brought against her, stating clearly that it is no one's business as to what her past involved. From the very beginning, the movie piles on the politics, giving us all the terminology without ever making it sound too complicated or overly brainy. It has all the makings of a perfect political thriller, and it takes those makings and makes them reality, giving us a story that is based not only on a person's rights, but on the way in which today's society behaves when there is an authority figure involved in a scandal. The movie itself is a testament to this way of thinking, because instead of focusing solely on the possible sexual proclivities of Hanson, it chooses to allow Runyon to question her morals concerning her political beliefs as well. He very rarely attacks her on the basis of her past, but instead criticizes her beliefs on abortion, separation of church and state, and her atheism. This is the defining contrast between the two major forces against Hanson in the film: the press focuses on her sexual past, while the governing bodies lean towards her moral and societal beliefs. And in dealing with her sexual past, the movie is truly wonderful in never coming out and saying that it, in fact, is her in the photographs, or whether or not she did engage in "deviant sex." Rare flashback glimpses never give us a clear look at her, nor do the photos. This gives the movie such a great opportunity which it capitalizes on: it allows Hanson to make a choice between allowing the allegations to overtake her or to simply look upon them as personal and say nothing publicly. In her choice to remain silent about her affairs, Hanson comes off as strong, morally righteous and defiant of those who want her out of the running. The plot for this film is complete and utter brilliance, with twist after twist, and revelation after enticing revelation. What really keeps it moving is its connections to the real political world, using such events as Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky as an example of moral belief. The movie also takes a stand on how our nation looks solely at the bad qualities and past events of a person's life, without ever really paying attention to the greatness they have to offer to this country. Performances are solid all around, with an especially commendable performance from Joan Allen, who is the centerstage for all the goes on in this movie. She plays the part of Laine Hanson, who, through Allen's performance, comes off as solid, strong, and most importantly, intelligent, in the face of her enemies. Her acting for this movie deserves a nomination for something at least. Jeff Bridges plays President Evans with sincerety and wit, and he is able to make us believe in the President's stand behind his candidate with firm dialogue and attitude. Gary Oldman plays Shelly Runyon, and does so with all the deviousness and craftiness that he brings to his many other roles that require this trait. He is the character of the film that we love to hate, and by movie's end, we hae no remorse for him. The supporting cast, which includes Christian Slater, Sam Elliot and William Petersen, all bring more life and charisma to the picture, making this cast one of the best of 2000. "The Contender" itself is one of the ten best films of 2000, and also the most innovative political thriller ever made. There were moments that I cheered for; there were times when I felt such a connection between the fiction of the film and reality that it almost seemed disturbing that this is such an accurate portrayal of how we as a nation act in the face of scandal. The movie has a lot to say about us, and about personal rights, and it carries all of this off successfully and with competence.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent political drama marred by preachy director
Review: When I finished this film, I had mixed feelings. I enjoy a good political drama and I love pulling for the underdog. However, it detracts from a film when a writer/director uses a film as his personal pulpit from which to preach a political philosophy replete with pejorative value judgments about those who disagree. Writer/Director Rod Lurie's story is a good one that is relevant in today's political climate. Unfortunately, Lurie's obvious liberal crusade pervades the film and his depictions of Republicans as vile and hateful people are so exaggerated that it makes the film far less realistic. This leads to numerous plot inconsistencies. For instance, it is impossible to believe that Senator Hanson could have switched from Republican to Democrat. With her ultra leftist political views, she never would have been elected as a Republican initially because the party would not have supported her candidacy. Also, Lurie tries to make Hanson into such a saintly character that he ignores the first rule of political mudslinging. A candidate must never respond to a smear campaign when it is true, and always respond when it is false. Another directorial error was attempting to make Hanson look like an athlete by including the running and basketball scenes when Joan Allen is not particularly athletic. Despite these unnerving flaws, the dramatic tension of the film is outstanding. The political infighting and backroom deals are very realistic and Lurie maintains a razor sharp edge throughout, pacing the film perfectly. He captures the supercharged atmosphere that results from the high stakes involved in national politics. The acting in this film is outstanding. Joan Allen nails this role with a career performance that is likely to put her on the map. She is tough and smart in her portrayal, but not so callous that she is unable to identify with the character's vulnerability. Jeff Bridges is excellent as the president, playing the part with a haughty swagger and a cavalier attitude towards all around him. His delivery of the final speech is spine tingling. Gary Oldman is also electric as the evil and conniving Congressman, and though I didn't like the way the character was written, I can't imagine anyone playing him better. Sam Elliott blows the roof off the White House with his no-bull performance as the President's Chief of Staff. This film is an excellent drama with numerous flaws propagated by a strident director with a political axe to grind. I rated it 7/10 including a two point deduction for directorial pontification. A director's job is to create and interpret, not to preach.
Rating:
Summary: Do Not even rent this one.
Review: I deeply regret purchasing this movie, and would have regretted even renting it. I feel so ashamed and angry for buying such blatent liberal democratic brainwashing bunk. But I was dooped by false advertising! The cover of this movie reads "A first rate thriller" Outright LIE I say! A thriller it IS NOT. (Although I can see that as a poignant reminder: that Clinton and the democractic party are the biggest bunch of liars in world history.) Again, this was not a thriller. I was expecting something like the movie "Absolute Power", but all you get is a bunch of liberal, feminist, democratic-agenda, baloney. Was this supposed to be Hillary Clinton's dream suedo-biography??? If you are anti-life(pro-abortion), anti-2nd Amendment, anti-God, and a gooey liberal sap, you'll love this movie. I may have been dooped into buying this movie by reading the cover, but I was not fooled by the extreame liberal agenda. I love how the makers of this lousey movie try to make their liberal breatheren look like American heros. Note especially the deep emotional music as it crescendos when the good little liberal senator gives her leftist oratory about the right of women to kill their own children, to "eliminate all guns period", and on and on. If the characters in this movie are supposed to be heros, then I'm a flying burrito con queso. What a bunch of caca. One good thing I can say about "The Contender", it perfectly demostrates how far the American people have strayed away from the values and morals this country was founded upon.
Rating:
Summary: AVOID THIS
Review: I cannot think of a bigger waste of time than to slog through this movie. Don't let the great actors that appear in it sway you. It is pandering tripe. Any episode of "The West Wing" is ten times more realistic, better written, and certainly better shot. For a movie with this budget to have a complex steadycam shot left with a drop of water on the camera lens (As this one does) is inexcusable. Also there are a countless number of superfluous scenes, not even including the many many deleted scenes on the DVD. But the most troubling thing about this movie, to me, is the way it tries to make a statement about the double standard for women in America- and yet contradicts itself. The entire film focuses on Joan Allen's character not defending herself because she feels she shouldn't have to (THIS WOULD NEVER HAPPEN). Her character is the model of integrity- basically a saint with no flaws. But after this important point is made, we are introduced to a minor character- an FBI agent who just happens to be a gorgeous 20-something with "Hot for Teacher" glasses. NOT an older operative, as would no doubt be used in a high profile case, nor a man (4/5 of the FBI's operatives are male), but basically another model in a suit like we are always "treated" to in Hollywood films. It's interesting that the focal point of this movie is that women are held to a double standard in America and that looks will always play a part in that. Then they (the filmmakers) work against themselves by not casting realistically so that they can squeeze a good looking woman into the film- somewhere, anywhere. Yet every male part, without exception, is played by men 35 and older (closer to 50 actually). Once again proving that while leading men need not be young or attractive to get good roles, women must be both to go anywhere in Hollywood. I could go further and further into the bad plotting and dialogue, but let's just stop here.
|
