Rating: 
Summary: Nothing new in the world of politics
Review: Filmed close to 30 years ago, "The Candidate" is a mirror to the politics of 2000. Nothing has changed, with the exception of more money being spent nowadays. The scheme of how things are orchestrated are the same, as demonstrated in the film, such as the role of media, the impact of being connected to certain people, the schmoozing of voters, and the list goes on and on.Robert Redford, as usual, is an actor extraordinare. His performance in "The Candidate" was strong, considering it was one of his earlier films. Redford's character and philosophy, throughout the movie, was similar to that of Robert Kennedy. Perhaps that is why I enjoyed watching it, because Redford's character was one who truly cared about the ideals of America and the fundamental rights human beings have. It was interesting to note, (not a surprise, though, I should add), how Redford's character changed throughout the campaign, as a result of the way the political operations - or rather, the political monster - function. An enjoyable movie for all who are interested in politics and the process of campaigning! Though you can expect what you see in this movie is no different than what you see happening nowadays.
Rating: 
Summary: "What do we do now?"
Review: I believe it was the Italian political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli who said, "The end justifies the means." Not only does this concept epitomize the American political process, but it also attributes to the corruption often associated with the workings of elected officials. One such instance of this corruption was depicted through the character of Bill McKay(Robert Redford): a sound, idealistic lawyer enticed by the opportunity for political power. McKay was introduced as the underdog in his race against incumbent Crocker Jarmon for the U.S. Senate seat for the state of California. In the beginning, McKay-with little interest in actually achieving victory-was determined to defend local issues, such as the problem with California's polluted beaches and the rate of unemployment plaguing inner-city areas. It becomes apparent, however, that McKay unap lacks a defined platform and is oblivious of certain controversial issues after stating in a press conference that he was in support of "bussing" without actually knowing what it was. Even with McKay's lack of interest and knowledge, the sly persuasion of eager campaign managers and Bill's wife causes McKay to believe that he will be more influential upon obtaining the seat in the Senate and begins to take his campaign "seriously." As McKay slowly gains a following, the issues he once stood for were pushed aside as his campaign managers attempt to reinvent his image in order to jump ahead in the polls. McKay's speeches become repetitive and reflect not his own personal beliefs, but only what appeals to the voters. McKay's fatigue and level of seriousness are shown in the scenes where McKay is overcome with laughter and unable to film a television spot and as McKay humorously rewords his one memorized speech, in a way, mocking the way he has sold out. Even though McKay feels his actions are a complete surrender to what he believes in, he feels that he must compromise and put all his faith into his campaign managers to do what is right in order to become elected. Is "selling out" really worth the win? I liked the fact that the film, no matter how old, speaks volumes about the current political process. Whether you are a fan of politics or not, this movie will leave you thinking as the credits role.
Rating:
Summary: Don't miss this chilling and mesmerizing movie.
Review: I first saw this movie during a college class. We had all stayed up late the night before, finishing our term papers, and the teacher apologized profusely for showing a long movie after we had a long night. But by the time the end credits rolled we were riveted. This 1972 movie is startingly relevent when it comes to today's political climate. As a once-blunt candidate who resorts to meaningless sound bites to please all of the people all of the time, Robert Redford's character is reminiscent of the politicans today who fight constantly for their survival and wind up having nothing to say. It appears that this movie is becoming forgotten, which is a shame. Rent it at your local store and blow off the dust; it's a well-kept secret.
Rating:
Summary: "serious tone" + "lends itself to so many jokes" = SATIRE!!!
Review: I would expect the 1-star granting MST-y fan to know this (with MST3K, sadly, headed for oblivion, "What DO we do now?"). This one is quite popular for use in college courses. The fact that it still resonates with students of American politics more than a quarter-century after its release, and does so with enough style and humor to appease the apolitical folks among us, is testament to its well-executed vision. Redford's disturbingly justifiable limo-ride meltdown is a keeper!
Rating:
Summary: The best movie ever made about American politics
Review: No better movie has ever been made about the American political process. Sure, it is a little dated now, although surprisingly little considering its age of nearly 30 years. (Examples: busing is no longer a high national issue, politicians are no longer afraid to take an unequivocal pro-choice stand, and the film fails to anticipate the supreme importance fundraising now plays in political campaigns). But the main theme is dead-on and just as fresh as ever: can a good man also be an effective politician? The movie's answer is not what we may want to believe. This is a strikingly effective look into the compromises, deals, and just plain b.s. that a candidate on the national stage must put up with in order to be elected. Is it possible to navigate through this without losing one's soul, or is the process itself all-consuming and corrupting?
Rating: 
Summary: Stilted, drippy, outdated, and worst of all REDFORD
Review: Okay people, Robert Redford is an ATROCIOUS actor. He is such a double-fisted hambone it is high comedy. Witness the scene in this film when he is "tired" and answers the phone. Ha! Okay, but on to the movie.
The Candidate is apparently for those legions of people out there in America who think they're good enough, they're strong ehough, and gosh darnit they want to make a difference! Oh, but politics is so evil! Well, I would never want a politician like this wimpus calling the shots for me or my family, hell I wouldn't even trust him ordering breakfast at IHOP. This film squanders what could have been an insightful look at political ambition, instead treating Red-baby as if he's the son of Jor-El. It helps that the evil Republican is nothing more than a windbag spouting off empty rhetoric. HINT TO FILMAKERS: Movies are more dynamic when there's an interesting, well-defined villian.
But, as a political junkie there still was enough here to keep me mildly interested, if only because it's a great portrait of the McGovern-era vapidity of the Left. However, this film fails not because of any political predisposition, for it doesn't even begin to explore the origins of political power.
Rating:
Summary: The W. in the Candidate
Review: One point of focus only: the irony that such a film has a moment where a black woman flashes a "W" sign at the candidate. The young and still hip candidate is able to interpret the meaning of the "W" sign..."peace, and up yours". Is it not the sign of true art that it still speaks prophetically about the present time after 3 decades?
Rating:
Summary: The W. in the Candidate
Review: One point of focus only: the irony that such a film has a moment where a black woman flashes a "W" sign at the candidate. The young and still hip candidate is able to interpret the meaning of the "W" sign..."peace, and up yours". Is it not the sign of true art that it still speaks prophetically about the present time after 3 decades?
Rating:
Summary: From California Senator to King of Aspen.
Review: Political fantasy in which Robert Redford discovers that mounting a successful campaign for an "important" office -- in this case, a U.S. Senate seat representing California -- requires the candidate to be shallow, media-friendly, etc. The gist of the thing is that he loses his naivety, the poor baby. Give me a break. I suppose the movie succeeds as fantasy, and there are some moments and characters that elicit chuckles during the campaign trail. There's the occasional telling detail that suggests the screenwriters -- who had actually worked for real-life politicians -- have been there and done that. But it must again be stressed that *The Candidate* is mostly fantasy. Indeed, Redford's character is fantasy: he never existed, doesn't exist now, and will not exist in the future. And the screenwriters -- the liars -- KNOW this. Politics is a dirty business that attracts dirty people, like a horse-apple attracts flies. The desire to be a big-time American politician comes with having a sheer, unrelenting hatred of all that is good and decent. The producers and writers of *The Candidate* understood this (even if their liberal, golden-boy Hollywood star did not), and yet they chose to waste our time with a beddy-bye story of a potential hero who ends up corrupted. The TRUTH is that anybody who wants to be a Senator is by definition corrupted already; anybody with any sense knows this.
Rating:
Summary: EXCELLENT POLITICAL FLICK
Review: Robert Redford was behind the entertaining political movie "The Candidate" (1972), which goes a long way towards explaining how the game works. This film is really not a liberal one, which is what makes it worthwhile even after 30 years. It is supposed to be based on Edmund "Jerry" Brown, former California Governor Pat Brown's son. Jerry Brown at the time was a youthful Secretary of State who would go one to two terms as Governor. He was a new kind of pol, attractive, a bit of swinger who dated rock star Linda Rohnstadt, and representative of the Golden State image of the 1970s. They called him "Governor Moonbeam".
Redford plays the son of the former Governor of California, played by Melvyn Douglas. The old man is old school all the way, having schmoozed his way up the slippery slope through implied corrupt deals with labor unions and other Democrat special interests. Redford is a young man who played football at Stanford and is now a social issues lawyer of the pro bono variety, helping Mexicans in Central California. Peter Boyle knew him at Stanford and is now a Democrat political consultant who recruits Redford to run for Senator against Crocker Jarman, an entrenched conservative Orange County Republican. Jarman could be Reagan, but he is as much a composite of the traditional Republican: Strong on defense, down on affirmative action and welfare, a real "up by the bootstraps" guy who emerged from the Depression and World War II to make up our "greatest generation."
The film does an about-face on perceptions that, in many cases, turn out to be true. Redford is the rich kid with connections. Jarman beat the Depression like the rest of the U.S., without a social worker.
"How did we do it?" he mocks.
Redford's film wife is played by Karen Carlson, pure eye candy (but what happened to her career I cannot say?). She has ambitions of her own, and pushes him to do it because he has the "power," an undefined sexual charisma of the JFK variety. Redford plays a caricature of himself, handsome but considered an empty suit. His deal is he can say any outrageous thing because he cannot win anyway, and in so doing shows he has the brains. When he creeps up in the polls, the idealism gives way to standard politicking, complete with deals with his old man's crooked labor buddies. He wins, demonstrating the power of looks and TV advertising. In the end he expresses that he is not prepared for the task. STEVEN TRAVERS AUTHOR OF "BARRY BONDS: BASEBALL'S SUPERMAN"
STWRITES@AOL.COM
|
