Rating: 
Summary: It could have been great
Review: An interesting portrayal of the power struggle involved between a lame duck president and one of his political rivals over the nomination of a woman to replace the deceased vice president. There is much to praise in this movie. The filming is good, the writing and directing are solid and it contains some truly superb acting. Unfortunately, it rapidly became clear that it was never meant to be a film exploring issues, but only a slick propaganda film. The opponent of the nomination is presented as a frizzy, balding neurotic complete with plastic framed glasses a la 1950. In contrast, the groomed and expensively tailored president and his nominee are followed with flattering camera angles carefully designed to pick out that single tear slowly falling to the table... the slow approaches to screen filling closeups of their face, (with appropriate inspirational music swelling in the background), as they stand against the "hate" of those that seek to drag them down. Yeeesh. Any chance of being a little more blatantly manipulative? Side note: One implication of all this was that the scandals of the previous administration were only concocted for political leverage. If only that were true... A previous reviewer suggested that viewers were taking this film too seriously; that it was deliberately farcical. Yes, it is both deliberate and farcical, but I doubt that the combination was intentional. The leading figures become exactly the type comic book characters this director has relied so heavily on in the past. A pity, really, because this movie could have been great. Surely there is a special irony in this particular director relying on the clumsy media manipulation ploys first pioneered by the propaganda officers of the Third Reich.
Rating: 
Summary: Horrible
Review: Lord knows there are plenty of movies and television shows for conservatvie Republicans to use as a whipping post for Hollywood's left leaning ways, but The Contender is a movie that is so bad, so self-righteous, so utterly unbelievable, that it'll offend and anger just about anyone. The first thirty minutes of the film, which would have been totally dead had it not been for Gary Oldman, lays all the groundwork for what looks like to be an engrossing, thrilling movie. But as the clock ticks, you quickly become disgusted, and by the end (especially the scene with the 'President' portrayed by Jeff Bridges addressing a joint session of Congress) you feel like hurling your remote at the television.The idea was solid, but the movie just gets it all wrong. "A First Rate Thriller" it's not.
Rating:
Summary: Propaganda Beyond Belief!
Review: I just watched this, what... political statement? Attack on anyone who disagrees with the politically correct? Utterly biased, didactic, swansong of hypocritical Baby Boomers? Self-righteous, hackneyed, waste of time? Normally I avoid commenting on the PC drivel spewed forth by Hollywood, but this movie was so ludicrously barefaced that I had to say something to warn people before they spend money to be programmed by the likes of Spielberg, Geffen and Katzenberg of Dreamworks (should be called PropagandaWorks actually). Frankly this movie has only one point... wielded with all the deftness of a sledgehammer. And that point is (drumroll): ALL Republicans are evil, mean-spirited, criminals! And the subplot is that Republicans are only interested in sex scandals! While Democrats are above all of this, and are saintly beings that 'care' and have perfect principals. (But wait, wasn't the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing all about a sex scandal pushed vehemently by Democrats?) The movie wishes us to not remember this, because well, then we might have to think about reality and maybe not believe the premise of the movie, and then not become good little robots programmed to only vote one way. I digress, but when in the last 30 years has there been a didactic movie like this from the right? I'm glad there aren't because I really don't like watching political movies, even if I agree with them! I suppose there aren't any because the entertainment business has only one political viewpoint nowadays. Apparently diversity of political thought or opinion is not a right that is allowed in Hollywood anymore. You can be left leaning... or extreme-left. But that is apparently your only choices. Score one for the 'free-thinkers' of the left (ha-ha). Anyway, I need to go vomit now. Watching so much self-righteous, hypocritical clap-trap has made me sick for the day! Note: I'm using a pseudonym because I don't really need the Hollywood 'thought-police' blackballing me like the have done to so many of my friends already. And that's the reality in the People's Republic of Hollywood! )
Rating: 
Summary: Oldman ,Allen & Bridges made the movie even better
Review: A powerful political movie that`s will make ask your self this question " which side i`m with ? ". A very strong acting performance , a good story , the movie has it all. If you like mystery , this one is what your looking for.
Rating: 
Summary: For Oldman fans only...
Review: Gary Oldman is my favorite actor, and he is GREAT in this film. His performance is 5 stars all the way. If you're a fan of Oldman, you will get a kick out of watching him eat up this role too. If you're not a fan of Oldman...or worse yet, if you're saying "Gary Who? Did he sing that song 'Cars'?"...then stay away.
Rating:
Summary: Acting Tour De Forces: Bridges, Allen and Oldman
Review: Jeff Bridges consistently is underrated as an actor. I found myself LOL every time he was on screen as he brilliantly played the President of the USA. He shows us what is best and worst about our leaders who are capable of getting the job done. One of Bridges' best scenes is when he is wolfing down a sharkfish sandwich, specially prepared for him, while getting Christian Slater's character back in line and solidly behind his nomination for vice president. Joan Allen, who brilliantly played the political wife in "Nixon," does another first class job as the senator seeking confirmation as vice president. She is at the crux of the conflict too as it is her sexual indiscretions in the past which now come forward in an attempt to destroy her chances for confirmation. Those are mined to the fullest by her most vehement opponent, another senator played by Gary Oldman, excellently, as usual. The only flaw in this film is that the script makes some predictible choices that seem at odds with the rest of the script, which bravely set forth to cover material no one has previously covered. This film is well worth your time though and I recommend it for an evening's viewing. The DVD also has an interesting documentary on it about making the film. I do wish though that these "making of" pieces spent a little less time telling us how fabulous everyone else was in the making of the movie. These sometimes sound like Oscar acceptance speeches.
Rating:
Summary: We can always hope....
Review: Five stars for Gary Oldman who as usual is brilliant. What a fabulous performace! Problem is, comparisons with reality are inevitable you soon realize how far, far, far away we are from such enlightenment. Perhaps someday when George Jr. is just a sad footnote.....
Rating: 
Summary: Hilarious Satire
Review: Am I, Como, the only one to see that this movie is a deep and subtle satire of political thrillers? From Hathaway's innane attempt at heroism, which immediately backfires as a ploy to gain the vice-presidency, through all the exposing takes on the pomposity, rhetoric, and posturing, of the genera, through the references to Coen brother's films, to the faux-moving speech at the finale, this film is a laugh riot. The bonus laugh is that it seems everyone is taking it seriously: pondering, for example, such questions as whether the film was biased. The idea that a political movie, or any movie, should be objective--suggesting a mass blurring of the distinction between entertainment and reality--is just the kind of silliness the film takes aim at. If you doubt my satire hypothesis, watch "The Big Lebowski" then watch "The Contender". The former movie will adjust your mind to properly view the latter. But that's Como!
Rating:
Summary: Far-fetched politics, revisionist history, no deeper meaning
Review: The Contender would never happen in reality. No president would recommend a candidate for vice presidency with both highly-controversial views and a suspect past (witness the Linda Chavez scandal earlier this year, and remember that was a cabinet post rather than second-in-command). Granted, any office that can be successfully held by a person of Dan Quayle's reputation can't be *that* hard, but names would not be proposed for office if a non-exhaustive background check shows a trace of scandal. The plotline with CSI's William Peterson as the governor of Virginia has a 'slapped-in' feel to it and provides only a catchy intro scene and a tidy wrap-up. The movie would be better-paced without this, despite Peterson's ability. The movie ultimately fails because it shows that power in politics derives from back-room deals, setups, shenanigans, and power grabs, and that spoken principles are secondary to obtaining and remaining in power. The 'good guys' (the President, Sen. Hanson) are just as cutthroat as the Inquisitor-like Sen. Runyan (Gary Oldman). As a citizen, I fervently hope that art does not imitate life, despite my better judgment otherwise. In addition, the politics of personal destruction (which both sides of the aisle excel at) win in the end. Rumor and innuendo rule the roost, as the movie and our culture reflect that those in the public spotlight have no private life. The most difficult part of the movie to swallow was Joan Allen's closing statement to the committee. She says that the government is the source of our freedoms and rights. Earlier in the movie, she named Thomas Jefferson as one whom she would choose to emulate. I doubt that Jefferson (who believed that we as people are endowed with certain basic rights and freedoms and that the government must be prevented from abridging or infringing upon those rights) would have much in common with one who believed that the government is our source of freedom.
Rating:
Summary: A quality political thriller, whatever your politics.
Review: Starring Joan Allen as Laine Hanson, a senator who is nominated by the President to replace the deceased Vice President, this political thriller kept me glued to the screen for the entire 130 minutes. Before congress can support her nomination, there is an investigation into her past, and a potentially scandalous incident from her college days seems to be uncovered. Jeff Bridges is cast as the president, who wants to be remembered in history as appointing a woman vice president and Gary Oldman is cast as the sleazy chairman of the investigating committee. Written and directed by Rod Lurie, the dialog is tight, the film fast paced, and the many twists and turns kept me fascinated throughout. Perhaps this film didn't get the recognition it deserved because it broke some rules of making films about politics. It is frankly partisan and feminist, slanted towards a liberal democrat position. The viewer, therefore, has more to think about than just the quality of the script, the directing and the acting. The quality is there, however, whatever your politics. Joan Allen plays the role with a quiet dignity that is neither overly sensual or cold. She's attractive and healthy as well as being highly intelligent and ethnical. What a combination! No wonder she was nominated for an academy award for this role. Most of the scenes are inside shots of the president's office and hearing rooms, but the dialog is sharp and fast, the camera lingering just long enough to pick up nuances of facial expressions. I loved this film and wish there were a woman in Washington today like the fictional Laine Hanson. She'd get my vote.
|
