The Contender

Rating:
Summary: Left Wing Propoganda
Review: I just finished watching "The Contender", and I have NEVER seen such a blatant display of Left Wing Propoganda in all of my 33 years! The story started interesting, telling the story of America's first female vice-presidential appointee and the hurdles she must over-come along the way. Sounds good right? The film then quickly deteriorates into a shameless promotion of left-wing ideology, disguised as entertainment. The film attacks the Republicans, people of faith, the abortion issue, and even takes on a bit of "revisionism" in stating what the true intentions of the founding fathers were. Even the casting of the characters is subject to suspicion, showing that anyone who votes for the Republican party is old, bigoted, and hypocritical. The music is sentimental and cheesy, and slowly fades up during the long winded speeches dripping with socialism, liberalism, and left-wing opinion. This is NOT film. It is an embarrassing example of Hollywoods contempt for American history, and its desire to allow the sixties counter-culture to own the self proclaimed monopoly on democracy. From the opening scene, to the closing credits, I was expecting to see a disclaimer scroll across the screen stating that "This film was paid for by the Democratic Party, endorsed by Bill Clinton, with additional funds provided by the ACLU, and would be excellent viewing by all High School age children, who need someone to blame for just about anything. Blame the Right." You may think I'm joking......I'm not. This film belongs in the trash.

Rating:
Summary: A preachy 'thriller' that falls flat
Review: The Contender bills itself as a political thriller, but it falls flat. It asks us to stand up and cheer for the Joan Allen's character for refusing to comment on an alleged sexual escapade simply on principle, the principle being that a politician's private life is nobody's business. For a movie like this to work, the audience needs to empathize with a character who is championing a cause that is unambiguously good. That's not the case here. Some people think a candidate's character does matter. Is a candidate's sexual past relevant? It may or may not be. In any case, it's the kind of question that's open to honest debate. If the filmmaker had found a more solid "principle" to champion, he may have had something with this movie, which features strong acting throughout. There's good pacing, too, but the movie builds to an infuriating climax. Sen. Hanson's closing statement to the House committee, delivered as the musical score rises majestically, a la "Rocky," is nothing more than a preachy liberal litany of her stances on social issues, likely to turn off more viewers than it inspires. The closer, Jeff Bridges' speech to a joint session of Congress, defies believability, as does the standing ovation he receives. In short, this movie needs a hero (or heroine) we can root for. It also can use a good dose of honesty.

Rating:
Summary: A Powerful Yet Ironic Look At Political Mudslinging
Review: I fully expected to become very upset at viewing this movie. I'm a political science major, and I have a crystallized set of political views. The movie is about Senator Lainie who becomes nominated to be the vice-president after the previous vice-president dies of natural causes. The Republicans in this movie are ideologically opposed to Lainie for several reasons. First, she's a woman. They would never assent to a female vice-president. If something were to happen to the president, she'll become commander-in-chief and will have control over our nuclear arsenal. Republicans believe that women could not competently lead our country in foreign diplomacy and in times of war. The second reason is that she's a Democrat. She supports abortion rights (equivalent to the Holocaust in Republican's minds) and champions gun control legislation. Lastly of all, she used to be a Republican but defected to the Democratic Party. If Senator Jefford's defection can be viewed as a model, her defection alone could ensure her the undying hatred of all Republicans.

A Republican senator played by Gary Oldman leads the opposition to Lainie's nomination. The Republican Party has become fanatical at targeting Democrats as evidenced by the impeachment proceedings for President Clinton. This is modeled well in the film. Gary Oldman's crew in the film digs up photos and witnesses to a day in Senator Lainie's Harvard University life when she got drunk and had sex with several male Harvard students. Gary Oldman uses this event to try to convince the senate committee charged with confirming Lainie to disqualify her. Senator Lainie's character in this movie is a saintly one. She has very high principles and is absolutely unwilling to compromise them for any reason. The Republicans in this movie are portrayed as ideological fanatics who will use every dirty and underhanded means to crucify their enemies.

Here is where I disagree with the movie. Senator Lainie in this movie voted to impeach President Clinton over his sexual scandals. Yet a little later on, it is revealed that her current husband used to be the husband of her best friend. She stabbed her best friend in the back and stole her husband. She wrecked a marriage and she had the gall to try to punish a Democrat who did the same thing she did. I don't believe that Senator Lainie is a virtuous person with high morals. Not at all. Worse, she's also a first-class hypocrite.

Rating:
Summary: We need more political thrillers like this one!
Review: A superbly-acted and well-written political thriller that was released just in time for the US election. Joan Allen, Jeff Bridges and Gary Oldman are excellent and their combined two Oscar nominations were well deserved. Allen and Oldman have the most conspicuous roles, as the intended messages, as well as the raison d'etre of the film, are found in their conflict. However, it's Bridges' role as the President of the United States -- with his jovial and everyman demeanour on the surface and a cold, calculating cunningness beneath -- that quietly elevates the film to another level, because Bridges defines that essence which separates us ordinary folks in the audience from successful politicians and awe-inspiring leaders. The backroom machinations of big-time politics were a thrill to watch, even if they were not always completely believable. The final plot twist involving Governor Hathaway was one turn too many and really, no successful politician would even believe for a second he/she could get away with such a high profile ruse. I should also point out that the film might seem one-sided to some, especially for those of you who thought there was a winner in the Clinton/Lewinsky affair and that winner was Kenneth Starr.

Rating:
Summary: It takes guts to see this movie, and all the more to live it
Review: "The Contender" is a riveting and unfortunately all-too-accurate portrayal of the price politicians of principle may have to pay to preserve those principles in today's Washington, D.C.

A lame-duck Democratic President (Jeff Bridges) has just nominated dyed-in-the wool liberal Laine Hansen (Joan Allen) to take the place of a recently-deceased Vice President. Approval of Laine's nomination becomes incredibly politicized, mostly along party lines, and the chief spoiler for the Republicans is the party elder played by Gary Oldman. He promises a fair fight, but quickly word leaks out that someone who looks a lot like a young version of Laine appears in an amateur film of a frat-boy-gone-wild sex orgy from the early 1970s. Laine steadfastly maintains the following: (1) her private life is none of anyone's business; and (2) if she were a man, none of this would even be worth asking. And she answers no questions.

Nonetheless, the inevitable congressional inquiry turns into a witch hunt with Oldman's character leading the charge. If you thought the Watergate hearings were nasty, well, imagine the tricks Hollywood can turn with such a juicy topic. Even under oath, Laine continues to answer no questions about her sex life.

Excellent writing and acting all the way. There is also a twisty subplot woven in that I can't even hint at without giving it away. I enjoyed Jeff Bridges as the glad-handing, back-slapping, people-oriented second-term President (Gee, I wonder who they were thinking of?). Christian Slater was quite believable as a rookie Representative from Delaware who isn't quite sure whether he needs to lend a piece of himself to the cause or sell himself out completely. Joan Allen as the party under seige was superb. I was astounded by the versatility and nuance of Gary Oldman's performance. Any more evil and he would have made the entire United States political establishment seem so corrupt that our best hope would be to surrender to Canada. Any less evil and he would have come out looking like a man of principle with whom one had better "agree to disagree." He walked that tightrope with world-class finesse.

Now, you probably know that this is not a Capra-esque movie. If you want a Capra-esque movie, see "Heaven Can Wait" or anything with the word "feelgood" attached. I won't even hint at the ending except to say it will raise emotions. And I believe this is quite a fine movie indeed, even though I've been known to vote against Democrats from time to time.

Rating:
Summary: Get off your soapbox, I can't see the screen!
Review: Don't worry, this isn't another liberal or conservative soapbox diatribe pushing the 1000 word envelope (ZZzzzzz)...this is an actual MOVIE REVIEW. YES, this film has a "slant". ANY film worth its salt has a VIEWPOINT. The fact that "The Contender" sparks such lively debate shows that it succeeds as a FILM, because it makes people THINK (what a concept). The movie blends Capraesque "Mr.Smith" idealism with backstabbing political intrigues worthy of ancient Rome. Gary Oldman is perfect as the Jesse Helms/Joe McCarthy/Newt Gingrich type out to "get" Joan Allen's idealized vice-presidential nominee. Allen gives a commanding performance and never rings a false note. Jeff Bridges plays the president somewhat broadly,(with an amusing wink and a nod to Bill Clinton's "inner foodie") but his charismatic screen charm wins out. Sam Elliott is a revelation as the president's ruthless, snake-in-the-grass "handler", contrasting his usual "laid back cowboy" image. Despite some dubious plot contrivances toward the end, "The Contender" is ultimately an intelligent, engaging and thought provoking entertainment.

Rating:
Summary: Bigotry and propaganda from rich Hollywood thought police.
Review: The Contender is so offensive and tendentious that it can be considered neither entertainment or art. Even Gary Oldman complained bitterly about the lack of balance that marked the Contender. It is a bigoted anti-religious screed. Early on when Senator Laine Hanson's six-year-old son mentions that the 'baby Jesus' created 'top-spin', Hanson's father is outraged. Apparently the kid heard this from his private school teacher. Ex-Governor Hanson mentions that he spent his career trying to stop this 'nonsense' in the public schools (yeah, this kid goes to a public school). Later on our heroine Hanson announces that though she is an 'atheist', she 'worships' in the 'church of Democracy'. As usual, the bad guy (Gary Oldman as Sheldon Runyon) not only looks like a bad-haired geek, but he's pro-life as well. He's a red meat eater (several scenes pointedly depict him cutting and eating steak) while our sensitive pro-choice (it's a 'fetus') heroine is a vegetarian. He's unkempt; she dresses smart. The message is clear -- only clods are pro-life while cool, sensitive people are for abortion rights. As an earlier reviewer has pointed out, the clearest analogy to The Contender in real life was the Clarence Thomas hearings. In Thomas' case, he was smeared with charges of sexual impropriety. But that's o.k. -- he was a conservative. I always enjoy Gary Oldman and he turns in another engagingly eccentric performance. Otherwise, this film is a disaster. All movie lovers whether they are liberal or conservative should protest this type of heavy-handed propaganda in commercial films

Rating:
Summary: Scandal and triumph in
Review: Am I the only one who thinks this movie was one of the most underrated movies of the past ten years--despite the kudos given to the (at this point) predictably brilliant Gary Oldman and the Oscar nomination for that supreme craftswoman Joan Allen? Am I the only one who felt almost immediately that director Rod Lurie, with this script, embraced, seduced, toyed with before flat-leaving, and then while leaping over and giggling transcended almost EVERY imagineable myth and cliche about the democratic process in today's America seen on *CNN*--let alone every movie since ALL THE PRESIDENTS MEN?

Throughout a number of spots in this movie I kept asking myself if it is pandering to the armchair political animal's equivalent to the pornagraphic/rubbernecking impulse, with a Republican Right Bad Cop/Democratic Leftist Good Cop dance going on with Gary Oldman and Co. vs. Jeff Bridges, Joan Allen and Co. To be honest, that view can only be tolerated when expressed by someone who either 1) didn't see the movie at all or in its entirety, or 2)has no respect or understanding of the artistic talent and process that produced the work of the writer, director and the screen cast. Many people have a tendency (one that can barely be judged harshly in the present political climate) to bring this stereotypical view of all of Hollywood to everything they see in the movies or on television....

This is not a mediocre movie.

Jeff Bridges' work in this movie as the President of the US, in fact, was unconscionably underrated by the critics when it hit the theatres, I see now. He so magnificently captures the soul of a Southern roots, city boy trained political animal president via his crafty machinations and courage under fire, that even when he seemed to slip out of character, it seemed as much as if it were the authentic vulnerabilities of his character showing underneath the protective facade of his office more than anything else.

Gary Oldman is too good all by himself for sterotypes to have had any value even if they were written unabashedly and unartistically into this script. The many dimensions, conflicting ideologies and emotional complexities he gives to the congressman's role he plays slowly build into a crashing symphony of their own with his wife's quiet, heart broken soliloquy on what this political process he has started, to discredit Senator Lane's character (Joan Allen), has done to HIS soul and political significance ("...the problem is you have no SENSE of history..."). He answers her, simply--painfully--by saying as his only necessary justification "she's no good." But in that moment you see the soul of the man who believes in the essential goodness and importance of what he has done for the country he so dearly loves, and the voice of doubt and fear damn near drowning out his entire unquiet mind as he all but asks himself aloud "what HAVE I done?"

Christian Slater's supporting role and performance as a young Democratic congressman is almost equally compelling in how it also works to shatter the sterotypical Republican/Democrat dichotomy this movie could have wallowed in. He crosses party lines and opposes his own party's President to oppose the senator's nomination. He believes it is a matter of principle and integrity for him to do so, grown from his belief that the female senator, mirroring the belief of his otherwise quasi-rival in Oldman's character, is just another poster child for affirmative action and definitively unqualified for the job.

The conversation the former Republican now Democratic senator Lane has with her still highly respected Republican governor father, asking for his public support in all of this, is enough of a glimpse to show you what this movie is well prepared to transcend for the beneifit of not just being entertaining and compelling, but to put profoundly important ideas on a silver platter for us to be confronted with long after the credits roll.

And Joan Allen's performance is simply masterful. She is a master of using less to give you more.

The magic of this movie said a great deal about imagery and politics in our world for me, and its often HEALTHY paradoxical effect. I probably would not have supported the nomination of Joan Allen's character as a regular American in a real political battle, had I not seen the true character of the woman come out, underlying the sadness of the hopelessly irrelevant but highly damaging sex scandal that surfaces as the central theme of the movie. It was her courage under this unfair fire exemplified which not only made me say that she needed to be in office, but gave me proud, patriotic chills with Jeff Bridges' moving closing soliloquy--chills that I normally would be embarrassed to admit I had.

Which by definition lets you know this novie is great: BECAUSE IT'S A MOVIE. It will have you suspending more disbelief for longer stretches of time than you are used to in Hollywood films on any subject--least of all politics.

Yes, there are few short moments where Rod Lurie loses the artistic objectivity that makes this film so great and hammers you over the head with rhetorical dialogue. That is the only thing that keeps this from being a five star review. You will be surprised however at how quickly you'll forgive those moments when they happen in the context of the total piece of art this great ensemble creates.

Naturally, the DVD format makes this all the better, because you have director's info on all the cut scenes and why they were cut--bringing you into the artistic process.

Buy it. Worth owning.

Rating:
Summary: Should've Been a Contender
Review: Over the months I've become increasingly intent on using my reviews as a forum to critize Academy voters, and though it does little to further my cause of depreciating the over-bloated awards ceremony, seldom has my critisim been more deserving than of Joan Allen's third snub in five years (and that isn't even counting the number of times she's been wrongly denied a nomination). If she'd asked me I'd have told her to boycott the Oscars, as her tour de force performance in The Contender was merely a footnote to their six thousand members who went with the much flashier and less substative Erin Brockovich star, Julia Roberts. I hate to attack anyone whose given a good performance, no matter how modest, but the hype surrounding Julia's win was so oversaturated that I can't help but begrudge her, especially when you consider the competion that was overlooked in her favor.

Here Joan Allen potrays the first woman nominated to the vice presidency, a liberal Demonocrat (I like her already) who finds herself subject to character assassination by a committee chairman whose idealogy doesn't match her own. The chairman, Shelly Runyon (played to perfection by an almost unrecognizable Gary Oldman), is a stauch conservative and feels her disloyal for having crossed over party lines. You see, she's the duaghter of a Republican governor and once ran herself under the elephand insignia. So the battle lines are drawn with the charismatic president (Jeff Bridges) and his Chief of Staff (Sam Elliott) facing off with Shelly and a power-driven Democrat (Christian Slater) looking to climb the latter by attaching himself by the hip to a notable Congressman.

Shelly's motives for lauching this attack seem blurred. One one hand he doesn't believe her to have the potential of his perferred candidate (Manhunter's William Petersen), but if he truly feels that Laine (Allen) is incapable and it's merely his tactics that are suspect, than there is still an underlying current of sexism in his beliefs. During the course of the hearings she displays the "promise of greatness" that he speaks so highly of, but because he's so set in his ways he disregards her virtues and continues to hammer away at her indiscretions.

At the root of all this is an alleged encounter she had while in college with two men, exchanging sexual favors for admission into a fraternity. I must admit that seeing this scene brought to life so vividly in fifteen second increments is pretty tough to stomach and made me do some self-examination in the double standards that I hold women to. Even as a liberal and devote supporter of Bill Clinton during that whole Monicagate mess, found myself with reservations towards nominating a "loose" woman to office. Seldom does a movie come along that's this well made that makes you question your own integrity.

As I'm sure you've already inferred by now, I think Joan Allen's fabulous in everything she does and to me is the female equivalent of a Marlon Brando or Robert DeNiro. Her verbal jousting with Oldman, and her banter with Bridges are the best parts of the film and makes me wonder if she as an actress doesn't make those around her better. Even when sharing the screen with lesser talents she exudes self-assuredness, and they respond by raising the level of their performances. Christian Slater, whose been wasting away in movies like Hard Rain the past few years, reverts back to the Slater of old. For the first time since Murder in the First we see the actor who left an indelible print on such contemporary classics as Heathers and Pump up the Volume.

As politicals thrillers go, this is about as good as it gets. Melding together elements of All the President's Men, The Parallax View and the Candidate, Rod Lurie's made a fascinatingly provative film that I'm sure is going to age like wine.

Rating:
Summary: Best thing about this movie - Jeff Bridges!
Review: Even though Jeff Bridges is not in the film enough, I really liked the way he played the President. He makes the President a lot more human. He orders sandwiches and acts like being President is just another job. He is the only reason I give this movie two stars. Everyone else in the movie is overacting! I agree with another reviewer that there are a lot of biased issues. I am neither Republican nor Democrat, but I always try to look at the issues that are important to me. This movie acts like the issues are important to us and who cares what you think. Joan Allen, the movies main character overacts so much that I almost can't watch. Really trying to over do it! Gary Oldman is O.K., but another part no one will be talking much about. And the direction and editing HORRIBLE! At certain times in the movie they are people standing if front of the camera and you can't see who is talking! Throughout the movie the camera keeps moving up and down like somebody kept bumping into the cameraman every so often. If you like Jeff Bridges you will really like the role he played in this movie, otherwise rent or buy something else.