United States, 2000
U.S. Release Date: 10/13/00
Running Length: 2:05
MPAA Classification: R (Profanity, sexual situations, nudity)
Cast: Joan Allen, Jeff Bridges, Gary Oldman, Sam Elliott, Christian Slater, Robin Thomas, Mike Binder, William L. Petersen
Director: Rod Lurie
Producers: Willi Bär, Marc Frydman, James Spies, Douglas Urbanski
Screenplay: Rod Lurie
Cinematography: Denis Maloney
U.S. Distributor: Dreamworks SKG
Cinemastuff Rating: *
This may be the most overrated movie of 2000. It never found a big commerical audience, but the critics seemed to love it and so did the people who pick Academy Award nominations. Of course, these people probably like it because they are a bunch of Clinton-loving liberals who voted for him and gave money to his campaigns. This movie is politically correct, slow and farily predictable. To make up for that, it is morally self righteous, slanted and pointless.
This movie is left wing in the extreme. I actually find nothing inherently wrong with that. My two favorite "political" movies of recent years are "Bob Roberts" and "The Last Supper." "Bob Roberts" is about a manipulative fascistic right-winger running for the U.S. Senate. "The Last Supper" is about a group of leftist graduate students who decide to start killing right-wingers. However, those movies were clever, edgy and good.
This review contains a lot of spoilers, so if you have not seen the movie but plan to, you should stop here.
The movie begins with an obvious rip off (or maybe homage) of the John Travolta movie, "Blow Out." A governor just happens to be under a bridge and with a reporter when a car drives off a bridge. The governor dives into action and attempts to save the girl in the car, but he is unable to prevent her from drowning. Of course, the whole incident was staged. I am not very good at predicting twists and turns in movies, but this one struck me as being especially obvious…. Or maybe I have just seen too many movies and now I can pick up on these things. The event is staged to make the man a national hero and secure the VP position. When he is snubbed, the drama begins.
The premise of the movie is this: The Vice President died in office and now the president needs to appoint someone to occupy the office. He decides to appoint a woman. Why? Because he wants to. That is about the only reason we get. It is clearly the big criteria he uses for picking her. Does anyone else find it stupid and insulting to try and pick a woman for a certain job in politics or wherever just because she is a woman? Doesn't it make sense to pick who you want and who is the most qualified and hope that a fair number of them turn out to be women?
In Hollywood, the Democrats are always the good guys and the Republicans are the bad guys. As I mentioned before, that sort of thing doesn't bother me when the movie or TV show is actually good. I love "The West Wing" and "The American President" despite the obvious political bent.
The conservatives in the movie say they don't want Joan Allen, the female candidate for Vice President to become the VP because she is not the best person for the job. This is never really refuted. In fact, it is probably true. But to point that out in the movie or even in the real world is just a little bit too politically incorrect.
And while a public figure's personal sex life may not be anyone's business, I would still like to think that the first woman to become VP or president will not be someone who engaged in group sex (even in college) and was caught on film doing it. Call me old fashioned.
The film is also pointless. It is an obvious attempt to excuse Bill Clinton for what he did and make his critics look like bad guys. However, Joan Allen's character, who turns out to be the hero and most moral person in the film, voted to impeach Bill Clinton in this movie. Huh? I just don’t get it. There is a clear distinction between her and Bill Clinton. Clinton clearly broke the law and commited perjury, whereas Allen allegedly had group sex decades ago when she was a 19 year old college freshman.
The film tries to say that these two are the same, but that is only wishful thinking.
We have a pretty good sense that Joan Allen is not guilty of what she is accused of. Is the audience really going to be happy at the end when this woman is sworn in knowing that she has a messed up background? The movies tries to redeem this character by showing her to be innocent. Huh? I don't get it. It is a stupid Hollywood ending sort of twist.
So what was the point again? Maybe the makers of the move lost track of what they were trying to say. Maybe they were trying to say that sleezy stuff just gets made up about people. Interesting thought. And I'm sure that everyone involved in this movie believes Clarence Thomas over Anita Hill.
But enough about Politics. Jeff Bridges is nominated for an Oscar for his part in this movie as the president. This is easily the worst portrayal of the president in Hollywood we have seen in the past eight years. We've seen Morgan Freeman, Harrison Ford, Jack Nicholson, Michael Douglas, Martin Sheen and several others play the president recently and they all do a better job than Bridges does in this movie. And don't tell me that his performance is subtle and understated. That is crap. He wasn't very good and neither is the movie.
The cinematography is worth noting in this movie. It is part docudrama and part Frank Capra. Any good movie set in Washington should have some good shots of the area. This one has at least one swooping shot of Christian Slater on the steps of the Capitol that is worth remembering. Then there are a lot of really long shots where we feel like we are in a room with a single camera watching the action being shot as a documentary. An interesting concept, but I could do without it. It is more of a distraction than anything else.
As usual, I'm not going to tear a movie apart without telling you what you should do with your time. Want a good political movie to rent? I already mentioned "Bob Roberts" and "The Last Supper." "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is still a great one to watch. "The Distinguished Gentleman" with Eddie Murphy is quite hilarious and so is "Wag the Dog" (in a dark way). You could also check out "The Perfect Candidate" or "The War Room" or "Primary Colors." Those three are all basically the same movie, though. (The politicos out there will get the reference.)
The DVD:
This disc has a few extras. There are some deleted scenes, but they are quite forgettable. I'm never against putting deleted scenes on a disc, but if you are going to bother with it and use it as a selling point for the DVD, the scenes should be worthwhile. Let's fact the facts. All deleted scenes, for one reason or another, were cut because they weren't good enough. Sometimes they get cut for pacing and timing reasons. Sometimes you can watch these and get a little bit more color on your favorite characters and check out alternate endings that show a director's original or potential vision. Unfortunately, these scenes on the DVD for "The Contender" don't add to the enjoyment of the film.
There is also a commentary, but I confess I did not listen to it. Frankly I don't care what they have to say about this movie.
Get this movie on DVD!
[top]
