The Contender

Rating:
Summary: Problematic, but Entertaining
Review: This film can be "good" or "bad" depending on how you choose to approach it. If you approach it from the standpoint of "I want to be entertained for an hour and a half, and I don't want to think much", this film will likely be enjoyable for you. This was how I approached it, and it *was* entertaining. However, afterwards, I started replaying certain aspects of the film as they relate to the ending, and you can't help but feel a little lied to by the writers and director in order to make the final twist work. Likewise, the main character, Hansen, is just way too unbelievable in terms of a politician. She's portrayed as a saint by the end, and you can't help but think how impossible her career would be for any politician so attached to their ideals.

Lastly, we're told that she is a Republican-turned-Democrat. She says she turned Democrat because the Republican Party moved too far from her ideals. Well, at about the 2/3 mark in the film, she rattles off her ideals and you can't help but wonder 'when in the US timeline could she have ever possibly been a Republican'. They tried to backfill a round hole with a square peg, and it won't work on anyone who remotely follows party politics.

The one saving grace for me was Jeff Bridges as President Jackson Evans. He nails the part and his character is entertaining for every moment he's on screen.

I can't really recommend this film, but if you do decide to see it, don't give it too much thought. It's more enjoyable that way.

Rating:
Summary: fairy tale
Review: Here is a pandering and self conscious film that builds to a fairy tale end it has not earned. Of interest are the power plays, but beyond that, the story is flat, forced, and unbelievable. Each of the main performances is marred by self consciousness as well, as if the director told the cast that each of them must adapt some accent or slur, some mannerism or gesture, in order to bring the character to life; of course, what happens is that the character become less real and simply defined by the accent or the gesture, the slurred way of speaking or the mannerism. There is a subsubsub plot about the President wondering if he can ever stump the White House kitchen and so making strange orders to them at all hours; we're supposed to be delighted when finally they run out of mustard and Bridges can grin. Cute things like that rarely work, but they especially don't work when they are forced down our throats. You know you are watching a bad film when you can imagine the screenwriter/director smiling smugly to himself as he writes the scene, as he films it, and as he screens it.

Rating:
Summary: Oldham controversy is what sustains this film
Review: Upon seeing 'Bourne Supremacy' recently, I was reminded of Joan Allen's other movies - she's fantastic in a relatively small role in the recently released 'The Notebook,' incredible as Pat Nixon (a role she was literally born to play) in Oliver Stone's 'Nixon.' Here, in 'The Contender' she's a Geraldine Ferraro-like putative VP nominee, sans the New York accent and 'John Zaccaro problem,' while Jeff Bridges is one of Hollywood's idealized versions of Bill Clinton (see also Michael Douglas in 'The American President,' Martin Sheen in 'The West Wings,' etc., etc.).

Now, four years after the movie's release, what lingers is Gary Oldham's portrayal of Rep. Sheldon Runyon and the controversy that followed. As with any movie Oldham is in, he is - far and away - the best actor in every scene in which he appears. Remember, Oldham was born, grew up and continues to live in London, yet he pulled off this stellar portrayal of an American archetype as if he were steeped lifelong in the U.S. legislative political swamp. To put this into perspective, imagine Brad Pitt playing Tony Blair.

Where it gets interesting is after the shooting had stopped. Oldham claims there were scenes cut in which you see Runyon's really not an overall bad guy - he's more than one-dimensional, has nuances in his character, etc. Well, forget nuance: In the movie as released by writer/director Rob Lurie, Runyon comes across as if he's on a monomaniacal jihad to get Bridges' President. This is about as nuanced as a sledgehammer, frankly, given the battles Clinton was going through at the time with impeachment procedings. The intriguing question is how much say Dreamworks proprietors David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg (big Clinton and Gore supporters) had in the released product. I'm not sure if anything got proven either way (i.e., what Lurie planned and filmed vs. what got released), but it gives the movie a heck of a background and certainly enhances the re-viewing experience.

I do like the editorial comment made on thes pages about the DVD release - "It's interesting to note none of Oldman's work ends up in the dozen deleted scenes shown on the DVD." Yeah, very curious indeed and a shame. It would be a treat to see the deleted scenes with Oldham and be the judge of how his character may have been distorted in one way or another through injudicious exclusion.

There is, however, one scene that I really want to take Lurie to task for (on simple technical merits) - the confrontational scene between Oldham and Bridges takes place over a dinner, and Lurie and crew has the place miked up like the old U.S. Embassy in Moscow. I almost couldn't hear the dialogue between all the sounds of violent mastication and slurping. You could almost put that scene on 'Animal Planet' it was so over the top. Four years out, I can't tell you what the two characters said (not even the nature of the exchange), but I do remember being repulsed by the sound mix.

Rating:
Summary: IN THIS CORNER.....
Review: Oddly enough, if I had been on the panel, I wouldn't have confirmed her nomination, either. But putting political beliefs aside and seeing THE CONTENDER for what it really is: a story of a determined woman who refuses to fall prey to the sexual allegations, and how her President stands beside her.
Joan Allen glows in this performance, appearing saintly at times, but still infuses her role with a fervent passion and conviction that assuredly led her to her nomination for Best Actress.
Jeff Bridges is surprisingly effective as the youthful President, and the added touch of him always eating is a nice humanistic side.
Gary Oldman, the executive producer of the film, also plays Allen's prime nemesis - the head of the confirmation committee. His own personal agenda of hate and revenge propel him into a spiraling downfall.
William Petersen of CSI plays the heroic Jack Hathaway, whose chances for the nomination are hurt when he fails to rescue a woman from a car that plunges into the river where he is fishing. Petersen's sincere performance belies a dark secret.
Sam Elliott in one of his best roles plays Bridges' aide whose determination to do what the President wants fuels his passionate performance.
The excellent supporting cast is rounded out by Christian Slater, Saul Rubinek and Phillip Baker Hall. Marial Hemingway's cameo as Allen's former best friend and her husband's ex, doesn't have enough passion to be convincing, but her screen time is so minimal, it doesn't hurt the film. Watch too for Kathryn Morris of CBS's Cold Case in a strange role as an FBI agent.
All in all, a well intentioned, gripping film.

Rating:
Summary: A Political Story About Process, Not Ideology
Review: Political junkies will have a wonderful time with _The Contender_, relishing its vivid characters, fancy political footwork, and twist-laden story. It's one of the best films in recent years about the *process* (as opposed to the content) of politics: a worthy addition to classics like _Mr. Smith Goes to Washington_, _Advise and Consent_, and _Wag The Dog_. If that's your cup of tea, add at least half-a-star to the four I've given it.

The four stars are for the viewer who's *not* a political junkie and just wants two hours of entertainment. _The Contender_ delivers that, with an impressively complex script and a large cast of interesting characters played to the hilt by first-rate actors who all seem to be having a great time. Jeff Bridges, in particular, is a revelation as the President. The film's flaws are matters of degree: the plot has one too many conveniently timed surprises and Gary Oldman's character, Rep. Shelby Runyon, is brilliantly *played* but underwritten.

When _The Contender_ came out in 2000, it was widely assumed to be a commentary on the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. It is, but it's also a commentary on many similar episodes: the failed nominations of John Tower, Robert Bork, Lani Guinier, and Zoe Baird; the savaging of both Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill; and the toppling of Speakers of the House Tom Foley and Newt Gingrich. Writer-director Rod Lurie is clearly outraged by what's become known as "the politics of personal destruction," and he attacks it savagely and convincingly here. His outrage is refreshingly non-partisan: The villains of his story are not *defined* by their party or their ideology, but by their willingness to abandon their principles for petty political gains.

It would be easy to write this movie off as another Hollywood story about saintly liberals and evil conservatives . . . easy, but wrong. Reverse the political polarity of the story (make Joan Allen's character a staunch conservative and Gary Oldman's a solid liberal) and, with very little adjustment, it still "works" and the same message still comes through: at the end of the day, there *are* things more important than winning.



Rating:
Summary: Depends on your point of view...
Review: ...as to answering the question, "will you like this movie?". If you have liberal leanings, politically, you might very likely enjoy this movie. If you are of the conservative like, then you would probably not like this movie. If you can manage to take how you feel about politics out of your mind while watching this flick, you have great self thought control. Politics aside, this movie is not bad, though. I thought Jeff Bridges was likable and the rest of the cast did a better than decent job, acting. The writing, on the other hand, was at times ok, but at times a bit over the top (the final presidential speech, for example). If you sit on the left side of the isle, you will enjoy how conservative politicians are generally portrayed as hypocritical scum bags. If you sit on the right side of the isle, you will point to this movie as just another example of how the left mis-portrays conservatism to meet their own agendas. My rating is 2 1/2 to 3 stars