A Conspiração

Greetings again from the darkness. Director Rod Lurie is living my fantasy. After a career as a movie critic, he is now directing some of Hollywood's best (and under-utilized) actors and actresses. This little thriller is fun to watch thanks mostly to the skills of those on the screen. All of these actors should work more ... SHARE your talent. Jeff Bridges is a very pompous, yet charming, smooth talking president. I assume the list to play the president was short, thanks to a couple of script lines about Clinton. Joan Allen is excellent as the cool senator with the lurid past (?) who is nominated for the VP slot. Gary Oldman, who continues to reinvent the role of CREEP, steals every scene he is in. Of course, this happens in all of his movies! It is always nice to see Sam Elliott and William Petersen on screen. And I guess Christian Slater is trying to salvage a career after the disastrous "Very Bad Things". He has lost some smugness and tempered his Jack Nicholson dialect. My only disappointment with the movie was in the script. Although I love the subject matter and the issues raised, I kept waiting for the shoe to drop on Gary Oldman's charater's deep, dark secret. Jeff Bridges stifling his political career seem quite the letdown. Would have really enjoyed a few more plot twists to really test the audience and cast. My tidbit for this one comes from the career of Sam Elliott. Next time you are watching "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid", check out a young Sam Elliott in the early card playing scene. Also, William Petersen's power-hungry wife in "The Contender" is played by Kristen Shaw, a carry-over from Rod Lurie's film, "Deterrence".

This may not be the greatest White House movie thriller ever - as its makers claim - but it is probably the most politically explicit. Gone are the days of Advise and Consent, when the opposing parties were simply referred to as the "majority" and "minority", and the movie aimed at non-partisan neutrality . Here, the administration is Democrat, and the film proudly wears its liberal heart on its sleeve. And the movie is all the better for this clarity and honesty.

Jeff Bridges is well cast as Jackson Evans, a President every bit as charismatic and opportunistic as Bill Clinton. Indeed, the whole movie can be seen as a take on the Monica Lewinsky saga, highlighting the manipulation and hypocrisy displayed on all sides at that time. (One mistake in the script is a direct reference to the Clinton impeachment vote; it is dangerous for parodies or satires to refer to the true stories on which they are based - it leads to a dislocation in the audience's point of view, and in this case to the awkward question - if this is a post-Clinton Democrat President, and he's coming to the end of his second term, in just what year is the action supposed to be taking place?!)

Given the White House shenanigans in recent years, it is surprising that some IMDb commenters should question the plausibility of the plot, which I feel stretches our credulity no further than most Hollywood thrillers. Joan Allen as vice-Presidential nominee Laine Hanson, and Gary Oldman as Shelly Runyon, her would-be character assassin, have strong parts and make the most of them - though personally I think it is Bridges' movie - but there is perhaps a little too much of Christian Slater in a curious role as Reginald Webster, a young, liberal, but seemingly anti-feminist, Democrat Congressman. The director, Rod Lurie, seems unable to make up his mind whether Webster should be portrayed as an overly-naive idealist, or an ambitious cynic with his eye on the main chance.

Overall, this is a fast-moving, enjoyable film, making the points that petty personal indiscretions should have little influence when it comes to power politics, and that it's about time the USA had a woman as President or at least a heart beat away.

Unless you sleep through your days or live with your head buried in the sand, you know that, without a doubt, politics is a dirty business. But do we need to be reminded of that fact? The answer to that is, inarguably, yes; just as we must be reminded of the Holocaust lest we forget and allow history to repeat itself, we have to at least keep somewhat abreast of anything which so significantly affects our lives. And unfortunately (some would say), politics is one of those things, and whether we approach it actively or view it all with passive ambiguity, the fact remains that what happens in government affects us all in one way or another on a daily basis. `The Contender,' written and directed by Rod Lurie, is a serious and sensitive examination of the political machinations employed to effect power and control within a democracy. In Lurie's scenario, the position of Vice President of The United States has been open for three weeks and must be filled. President Jackson Evans (Jeff Bridges) makes his choice: Senator Laine Hanson (Joan Allen), who would be the first woman in history to hold the position. First, however, she must be confirmed. And at this point, the real story begins to unfold as the beast rears it's head: Enter partisanism, personal agendas, media manipulation and, somewhere near the bottom of the list, Truth. To illustrate this dirtiest of all businesses, Lurie references a specific episode from the not-too-distant past, and draws a number of parallels to more recent political events, all of which are used purposefully and effect the desired results. It becomes not so much a case of good against evil so much as simply a question of what is right and what is wrong, who draws the line and who decides when and where that line should be crossed. To his credit, Lurie objectively presents both sides of the story without delving so deep as to mire the proceedings down with any unnecessary baggage merely to introduce any subjective leanings or to manipulate the audience one way or another. It's like a political campaign; viewers are left to decide for themselves and cast their vote as they may. The theme of the story itself is not virgin territory, but the way it's handled and delivered, including some exceptionally strong performances (there should be some Oscar nominations here), makes it unique. Joan Allen adds another exemplary performance to her resume, further demonstrating her great prowess as an actress. She imbues Laine Hanson with a strength and character that makes her entirely believable and credible. And Gary Oldman (in what is an uncharacteristic role for him) is absolutely dynamic as the ultra-conservative Shelly Runyon, who proves to be a most formidable opponent to Hanson and Evans. Bridges also comports himself well, creating a strong, insightful character in President Evans, exhibiting the very private, human qualities behind the public figure. The excellent supporting cast includes Christian Slater (Reginald Webster), Sam Elliott (Kermit), William Petersen (Hathaway), Philip Baker Hall (Oscar), Mike Binder (Lewis), Robin Thomas (William Hanson) and Saul Rubinek (Jerry). Lurie allows only a single lapse into melodrama (patriotic music begins to swell about half-way through Hanson's final speech), but the closing speech by President Evans is impeccably delivered with force and strength, and his words are exhilarating; how satisfying it is to hear things said that must and should be said, if only in the movies. Using the political arena to address subjects that concern all of us– morality, ethics, principles, truth and honesty– `The Contender' is riveting drama that invokes the conscience of a nation by examining the moral fiber and motives of those who would aspire to greatness. It's gripping entertainment with a message about Truth, Decency and the necessity of bipartisanism in politics; it's a statement well made, and one that should be taken to heart by all. I rate this one 9/10.

The Contender is a film with the potential to take any conscientious person with even a mild interest in how governments are run , and who the leaders are through a non-stop roller-coaster ride of challenge, triumph, pain, failure, and morality. Although I intensely appreciated this movie, I do not believe this could have been an oscar-winning film because the truths it expresses with regards to the presence of women in high ranking political positions far outway its acting and directing talents, with the possible exception of Gary Oldman's role as Shelly Runyon, who was frighteningly convincing at being an absolutely awful man. I enjoyed this movie because of its intention to show what women in politics really face. The strength displayed by Laine Hanson (Joan Allen) while up for vice president is nothing short of inspirational. Gary Oldman's character provides us with a good idea of how manipulative and ruthless people can be when in a position of power and, ironically, when they have been put in a position to judge another's morality. This film seems so realistic that we tend to forget it's a movie. It makes us question, why does a person have to be surrounded by such controversy and be forced to take on such a defensive position, simply for being a woman? What I appreciated is the refusal of Hanson to succomb to the pressure of taking that defensive position, regardless of the truth. Of course, the other refreshing aspect in this movie is Jeff Bridges' role as an ideal president.

All in all, it is a long overdue account of reality, with great character development but not recommended for those with short attention spans, as it is dialogue, and lots of it.

First off,the acting is first rate. So good that the rest of the cast almost performs at the Gary Oldman level. That's high praise,indeed.

With that out of the way,it seems like the real purpose of this movie was to take a cheap shot at Republicans in general,and conservatives in particular. The Dims are saints,and the Republicans are evil.

This message couldn't be clearer than when Joan Allen gave her little speech about "I'm for a woman's choice,I'm for the government taking the guns out every house in the country",etc,etc,etc.,and the speech she made about leaving the Republican Party because it had shifted away from the values that formed this country. That had nothing to do with movie making,and everything to do with political propaganda. Stalin couldn't have came up with a more left-wing rant.

After all,how can you take a movie seriously when it shows a vice- presidential candidate giving a speech to a committee that states she wants to see every gun in the country confiscated by the government? We are supposed to believe the voters would take a direct assault on the Bill of Rights so casually they would elect someone who said that?

It's a damn shame the director and writers of this movie decided it was more important to make a propaganda film than a movie for entertainment.

Not that the Republicans aren't guilty of sleaze. They most certainly are. They are mere amateurs compared to the Dims,though. As the writing,editing,and directing in this movie proves.