Rating: 
Summary: Sex, politics, and intrigue
Review: "The Contender," the film written and directed by Rod Lurie, has a fascinating premise. After the death of the vice president of the United States of America, the president (played by Jeff Bridges) decides to appoint a woman senator (played by Joan Allen) to the vacant position. She would thus make history as the first woman to hold the office. But when a right-wing congressman (played by Gary Oldman) uncovers allegations of past scandalous behavior on the part of the "veep" hopeful, a nasty political battle threatens to derail the historic appointment.There are a lot of good points to "The Contender." The performances are excellent. Joan Allen is fiery and determined as the prospective vice president. I especially liked Jeff Bridges as the president: his performance is deliciously sly. Director/scripter Lurie has written some stirring pieces of oratory which the cast delivers with vigor. But the film is unsatisfying in some respects. Gary Oldman's character, despite the actor's talent, comes across as a shallow stereotype. I'm not sure if Oldman was let down by the script, by the editing room, or both. Also, a couple of plot twists struck me as somewhat hard to swallow. Nevertheless, "The Contender" is an entertaining and thought-provoking political thriller. Both political junkies and fans of good acting should appreciate this film.
Rating: 
Summary: More Wishful Thinking from Our Friends in Hollywood
Review: Joan Allen plays an earnest, do-gooder would-be vice-president whose confirmation is placed at risk by a college sex romp (they even have pictures). The acting and directing is superb, but as with just about anything Steven Spielberg touches (his company, DreamWorks, produced this little rat-fest), the story is rather hollow. Hollywood dreamers continue to portray "their guys" (Democrats) as noble, and the "enemy" (Republicans) as heartless ambitionaries. Thus in "An American President", we have a widower stand-in for Bill Clinton whose chief crime is going out on a date, and whose chief adversary (Bob Rumsford, a clear allusion to Bob Dole), has nothing whatsoever to recommend him. Bob Dole, of course, risked his left and lost the use of his right arm whilst fighting in WWII, but never mind, that's too much to give him credit for. Here we have a Senate Judiciary chairman - Sheldon "Shelly" Runyon, who they had to put in the movie because the real Republican Judiciary Chairman, Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, is way too much of a Boy Scout, although the movie intersperses real names with fictitious - Barbara Boxer actually is a Senator, Runyon is not, etc. Don't waste your money on this propaganda. Leni Riefenstahl would be proud. Hollywood likes to make movies about how not everything is black & white, but their political "dramas" seem to say anything but. Don't give 'em a nickel.
Rating: 
Summary: A perfect example of the the liberal bias in Hollywood
Review: This is quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. It is unabashedly slanted in one very narrow minded direction, portraying conservatives as small minded bigots and liberals as the saviours of the free world. I will never understand how a person who proclaims tolerance and equality can be so vicious and obstinate. This movie is the product of a small mind with a terrible premise. If you have any respect for your own intelligence, I urge you NOT to buy this film or pay any patronage to the creators. This is exactly the kind of unintelligent, hateful drivel that we should all wish to see exiled from our media. I would not be nearly as hard on this movie as I am if the writer had made any effort whatsoever to portray the good and bad dimensions of both parties. Instead, the writer has chosen to create a fairy tale of insignificant proportions for the sole purpose of breeding hate and intolerance. If there were a selection for it, I would give this movie 0 stars. This DVD's greatest use is as a coaster for your coffee table.
Rating: 
Summary: Engrossing political drama
Review: The Contender, inappropriately billed as a thriller, but engaging nonetheless is one of the best political films I've seen. Meticulously centered around the concept that a woman's lewd behavior is chided more than a man's, the film takes the viewer on a 'behind-the-scenes' tour of the American political system, exposing it's soft underbelly. It shows how fragile the public's regard is toward people of office, and how far others will go to get what they want. Yes, the film is a bit partisan to the liberal side, but so what? It's an 'R' rated Hollywood movie, not an innocent may-the-best-man-win children's romp. The performances are top-notch, and Joan Allen deserves the Oscar nod. Jeff Bridges and Gary Oldman also perform very well. If you're looking for an intelligent political drama that requires some thinking and attentiveness, go get this one.
Rating:
Summary: Forget it!!
Review: Unless you're a bleeding heart liberal, forget this movie! This is the first movie I've ever sat through that I wanted my money back. If I wasn't such a huge Gary Oldman fan I would have gotten up and walked out. Oldman always plays a really strong character, which is how his character started out in this movie. Then the writer or whoever found it necessary to turn him into a snivling coward which I found completely unbelievable considering the character he was playing. The plot was preposterous, predictable, and infuriating. Academy award material, I don't think so!
Rating:
Summary: I Wish it were True
Review: If only there was or had been a president like this. If only there were advisors like these. Jeff Bridges & Sam Elliott are great in their roles. Joan Allen is deserving of an oscar. Christian Slater is great. But the star is Gary Oldman who is Hollywood's greatest living villan. He gives depth & reason to a man who is the epitome of a power broker politician. The story is great. There are messages here for the youth of today. I wish more people had seen this movie. Even if the beginning is a little too predictable the end makes up for it. I.m voting for Bridges and Allen in '94
Rating:
Summary: Liberals Unite!
Review: I can see how some people may harbor an intense dislike (or even hatred) for this film. These are probably the same people who would defend the arguements made by Gary Oldmans (evil) Republican senator. Im glad the creator of The Contender blasted every right wing idea. Its about time. All in all this was a great film, with great acting. In particular, Gary Oldman and Joan Allen (perhaps one of the most underrated actresses today)gave incredible performances. However, Sam Elliot was left out in the cold. He should have definitely been nominated for Best Supporting Actor.
Rating:
Summary: Horrible and a ridiculous premise.
Review: This movie is horrible. Apparently it is up for an academy award but I don't see how. Clearly the people who nominated it haven't seen it yet. It is based on the ridiculuous premise that a man wouldn't be asked the kind of questions about their past that this women was asked so based on her principles she refused to answer them. I guess the writer, and everyone working on the film, never heard of Bill Clinton or Clarence Thomas! On top of that, this movie has very little action and an ending as ridiculous as the premise of the movie. I'd give it less then one star if I could.
Rating:
Summary: the world according to the Hollywood left
Review: Spare yourself this leftwing diatribe interlaced with soft core porn. Even given Hollywood's well-known bias it's rare to see a film display such animus toward religion. We have, for example, a grandfather going ballistic over his grandson's innocent assertion that "baby Jesus made everything." I shudder to think of the world these people inhabit where the faith of a little child must be held up to ridicule and crushed. Then we have the monologue of the vice-presidential nominee to rising strains of inspiring music, a paen to every left-wing cause, with a final swipe at religious faith. Don't waste your time and don't put a nickel in the hands of the folks who produce this stuff.
Rating: 
Summary: Quasi-private political drama you will NOT see on C-SPAN
Review: For 14 months in 1963-65, the United States had no Vice President. Some members of Congress, chief among them Sen. Birch Bayh, believed that this situation (which had occurred several times earlier in our history) was intolerable considering the necessity of a clear chain of command in the nuclear age. Their ideas were eventually codified as the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, providing (among other things) a procedure for filling a vacancy in the office of Vice President. The process was utilized only twice, both times in the first 10 years after its ratification. The Contender tells the story of the fictional "next time" that the office of Veep needs to be filled. We never see the Vice President. Jeff Bridges plays the President, Sam Elliott (without mustache!!) plays the Chief of Staff, Joan Allen and William Petersen play competing suitors for the nomination, Gary Oldman plays a major leader of the opposition party, and Mariel Hemingway plays a witness before a Congressional committee. I listed those names for a reason: These are skilled, seasoned performers. Acting, to all of them, is really a craft. It is a pleasure to watch them work. Some of them (Allen, Oldman) inhabit their characters so completely that they may be giving their best performances in any film; Hemingway is good for perhaps the first time. They have some great, highly theatrical scenes here: the Oval Office meetings, the official and unofficial working meals, the time-limited appointments in Members' offices, the high-level discussions in cars, helicopters, and private homes. The problem with the film is that the director/writer is NOT a skilled and seasoned craftsperson. He draws the battle lines well and portrays powerful people (accurately) as unwilling to yield strategic points even to presumed allies. He writes a couple of great characters (notably, to me, Allen's character's combination of feminism, femininity, sensuality, carnality, brains, purpose, and guts; and Bridges's character, who has to be seen to be believed). But the other reviewers are correct that many, many of the lines at key intervals simply do not work. They are also correct that the viewer is clobbered on the cranium with the specifics of policy positions which advance the plot little. (In the context of this plot, for example, who cares about gun control?) Of course, the plot hinges on the details and he-said/she-said/another-she-said recollections of an alleged college orgy, not exactly standard fare for a Constitutional conspiracy movie. There are also glaring errors, as mentioned by other reviewers (to which I add these: the movie has characters refer to "advice and consent", even though these words are not used in the Constitution with respect to the filling of the office of Vice President; also, good luck trying to figure out what time of year the action is taking place). Furthermore, there is an utterly incomprehensible character played inexplicably badly by Christian Slater. However, the movie does have THOSE PERFORMANCES and THOSE SCENES that bring the audience into the very midst of human struggles. It gives us characters facing situations, small and large, which they have never faced before, have probably never envisioned facing, and don't exactly know how to deal with. I don't always think the writer chooses credible ways for them to resolve their conflicts, but I sure as hell want to see films that illustrate the tension of such adverse circumstances where even your friends might be your enemies -- to the point that even a nominee's father's support for that nominee cannot be taken for granted. Two final comments: I adored the performance of the Columbo-style FBI agent assigned to do a background check on a deceased woman. Another reviewer has criticized the film for not placing an older agent in the position; to me, the strategic gamesmanship of the characters makes it totally believable that they would assign the investigation to someone who is so young-looking that they wouldn't inspire suspicion. I presumed the actress, Kathryn Morris, must have been an established star doing a cameo (which it isn't); that's how good I thought she was in a role that was not necessarily as subtle on paper before she took it on. Finally, other reviewers have suggested other (better) films to rent; to their lists I must add a true five-star movie that is ACTUALLY about a congressional battle over a presidential nominee -- Advise and Consent, starring Henry Fonda (as the nominee). If you want political drama without the overt sex and street language, rent that one instead of this one. If you can stand it, see them both.
|
