We're working late this week bringing you the latest reviews of this weekend's releases. I'm promising you readers a HUGE announcement next week. So stick around and in the meantime enjoy the reviews:
Here's two reviews of Rod Lurie's The Contender:
Hollyfeld, here. After seeing The Contender last night I found myself desperately wanting someone to talk to. Not because of the issues The Contender raised, or because I wanted to sing it's praises or condemn it or anything. I just desperately needed someone to rant to about how a few little problems almost completely undermined a potentially classic film. That bothered me, but we'll get back to that in a minute.
For those who don't know, The Contender is the latest release from Dreamworks, and stars Joan Allen as vice-presidential hopeful Laine Hanson, the first woman ever to be appointed by a president of the United States. (Yes, there was that whole Michael Dukakis thing, but he wasn't president, was he?) But it isn't as easy as just being appointed for her. You see, the Constitution is kind of fuzzy about the replacement of a vice-president in the middle of a president's term, so she has to go in front of a congressional committee before they can approve of her. The only problem is that the man at the head of this committee (Gary Oldman, so you know it's bad) is a good friend of the man passed over for the nomination, and is out for blood. Soon, pictures of Ms. Hanson participating in group sex in college show up, pictures Ms. Hanson refuses to comment about one way or another because "it is beneath (her) dignity." And things more or less blow up from there.
For the most part this is a very effective movie - writer/director Rod Lurie has done a good job. Not great, but once again we'll get to that later. The bulk of the film is shot on hand-held or moving cameras, giving it both a pseudo-documentary look, contributing to the sense of realism ever present throughout the film, as well as contributing a certain level of urgency to scenes otherwise devoid of action - dialogue scenes that could have been very boring. And I'll give The Contender one credit - it is never boring. Another effective aspect of the film was the sparse use of the musical score, which was either non-existent or unnoticeable except in three scenes.
The main problem with the film, however, derives from these scenes. Throughout the movie a tone of realism and subtleness takes center stage, except for three scenes of such galling melodrama and heavy-handed symbolism as to make the John Williams-esque sweeping dramatic score both completely unnecessary and insulting to the audience's intelligence. I found myself wanting to shout at the screen, "All right, already, we've figured out that it's a big speech! Move on, for the love of God!" If ever there was a film that deserved a complete lack of a musical score, this The Contender is it. These scenes are not bad, but become so when over-punctuated with rousing music, much like the "Giv-ess us free" scene in Amistad - another otherwise subtle movie that becomes somewhat undermined by the unnecessary heavy-handedness of the director. However, the biggest problem with the film is the ending, which we will get to at the end.
The performances are all strong and effective, but the only two actors who stand out are Jeff Bridges and Sam Elliot, reunited from their roles in The Big Lebowski. Jeff Bridge's president is a wonderful character, and the best along these lines he's played since Francis Ford Coppola's Tucker (of course, his portrayal of The Dude was even better, but these are hard to compare). He seamlessly blends the wit, intelligence, tension and charisma we would all want in a presidential candidate - and his running joke with the White House kitchen staff is priceless. And Sam Elliot as his aide is also brilliant, pulling off one of his best and most complex performances in years - the kind of man you would want at your side in a crisis.
Everyone else does a good job in what is required of them, but have all done better work before. Joan Allen isn't given as meaty a role as you would have expected but she does what she does with skill and aplomb - expect her to get an Oscar nomination, but once again not a win. A shame, too, because I had really hoped this would be her year. I feel that she's gotten shafted two or three times in the past. Gary Oldman's performance will be easily over-looked or taken for granted because of the sheer fact that he is Gary Oldman. If this had been David Paymer we were talking about here we would have been looking at instant Oscar territory. And Christian Slater is there too, doing his darnedest and a pretty good job of it, too, but, again, inferior to to his previous work. (See Murder In The First to find out what I mean.) His character was very interesting, however, and he has become the first person I would want to play the lead in a remake of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
Rod Lurie has composed one of the better political message movies of the past few years - superior to, say, Amistad, but several steps behind such classics as Primary Colors, Wag the Dog, or Get On The Bus. His missteps are few, but damning, and ultimately lower this film from the status of a 'leader in the field' to 'almost ran.' Recommended, but not too highly.
As for the ending, which I must talk about or it will destroy me, read on, but of course a MAJOR SPOILER WARNING, because I will reveal the film's ending(s). For those not interested, move on. There are some cool Jurassic Park 3 pictures to see.
Okay, the ending. It SUCKED AND WAS UNBELIEVABLE. Not only was Joan Allen not involved in the sexual events but also she gets to be vice-president. Now, presented in review form, this doesn't seem so bad, but in the context in the film it is all but unforgivable. More so than political impropriety, the main focus of this film was the concept that politicians are humans, and are capable of making as many mistakes as the rest of us. By taking away this event from her past, writer Rod Lurie automatically relegates her to the status of sainthood, and she no longer becomes identifiable to the audience. She becomes someone we should aspire to, and not someone who we are. The message after the film says, "For Our Daughters." Inadvertently, this gives our daughters the implication that they are not allowed to screw up any more. I'm sorry, isn't that what college is for? (Note: That was a joke.)
The solution is simple, and with options: Either keep this event in her past and have her become vice-president because it doesn't matter, or take this event away and have her step down because she has either become disillusioned with the political process or the hearings took a more emotional toll on her than we expected - then make Sam Elliot or Christian Slater, for example, vice-president. Both would be good choices, and wouldn't detract from the audience's appreciation of the movie. Laine will achieve both a victory and a loss, and will come out on top no matter what. The audience would identify with her rather than deify her, and Joan Allen's performance would seem all the more remarkable. END SPOILERS!
I SO wanted to love this movie, and in turn love her, but Rod Lurie just wouldn't let me - and by insisting on perfection, he ended up with something less.
(Review provided by 'Hollyfeld'.)
Next up are three reviews by regular correspondent 'Q-Brick':
The Contender
Lately, when Hollywood turns its cameras on the political process the conservatives get smacked in the face. Witness the well-written, wonderfully acted West Wing. It is some of the best drama on television this fall, except for one failing: Liberals are shown as compassionate and bright while conservatives are broadly painted as overfed, self-interested Neanderthals.
This same flaw ruins (at least for us conservatives) The Contender. On the plus side it is a tightly written, handsome bit of film making from writer/director Rod Lurie. The cast is Oscar-calibre featuring Joan Allen as Laine Hanson, whose lurid past threatens to derail her political future. When the Vice President of the US dies unexpectedly, she is nominated to fill the post....until a videotape surfaces, revealing her alleged past sexual antics during a frat party is discovered. The President (Jeff Bridges) supports her candidacy. Bridges is surprisingly comfortable in the role.
Gary Oldman, who continues to fashion some of the most watchable performances on film, plays the muck-raking Senator Shelly Runyon. Runyon has his own plans for the Veep's position. He's pushing for Senator Jack Hathaway (William Petersen). He's a serious contender and a likely shoo-in thanks to his attempted heroics during a freak accident.
But an otherwise riveting film goes all gooey and simply falls apart when Joan Allen's character refuses to defend herself. She believes that a public official should never have to answer questions about character....even if the truth would exonerate them. That's when this flick lapsed into science-fiction.......social science fiction.
No politician worth their ballot box would ever refrain from revealing the truth when it could clear them, without question, of wrong-doing. And neither would anyone else with any common sense. But I guess I'm just an over-fed, self interested Neanderthal.
Best in Show
Christopher Guest has been instrumental in developing that newest of genres, the mockumentary. Coming from a strong improvisational background coupled with his work the now classic Spinal Tap and Waiting For Guffman has allowed him to hone his comedic sensibility in this arena. So, it's no surprise that his latest offering, Best In Show, allows us to enjoy his brand of wackiness while almost forgetting that we are watching pure fiction.
Writer/Director Guest has populated this fictional world of Dog Shows with some of his old pals like Michael McKean, Catherine O'Hara, Eugene Levy and Fred Willard. And Willard, I should note, nearly steals the show with his turn as a loud, crude announcer who would be more at home at a wrestling match.
Parker Posey is also on hand as part of a toxic yuppie couple. They have come to the dog show hoping that their pet will be able to compete despite being recently traumatized by the site of them in the act of love. We learn that she met her L.L. Bean wearing mate sitting in a Starbucks' as he sat in another Starbucks...across the street from her.
Christopher Guest, himself, plays Harlan Pepper who arrives with his prize bloodhound, all the way from Pine Nut, Mississippi. Pepper is also learning to be a ventriloquist. I lost it when Pepper shows off his burgeoning but faulty skills. Even his dog isn't immune. Best Of Show never approaches the full-tilt fun that was Spinal Tap (which will always be a hard act to follow) but I think fans of the mockumentary will not be disappointed. If you don't laugh for 90 minutes, you'll at least catch yourself smiling a lot.
Lost Souls
Here's a flick that's been held from release for almost a year now. Never a good sign. At first I thought they might be waiting for the big summer pictures to play out. Now, it seems that the distributor has simply positioned Lost Souls to cash in on the re-release of The Exorcist. Too bad, because Lost Souls will only suffer all the more by comparison.
In the thinnest of plots, Wynona Ryder is a one-time victim of demon-possession who believes that a popular, atheistic writer (Ben Chaplin) has been chosen as the anointed son of Satan. This is all complicated by the fact that Chaplin's character is completely unaware. Much of the story focuses on her attempts to convince him that he's the One. I think the premise was in trouble from the start. That's a tall order for any screenwriter or even a fine cast to pull off with a straight face. They do not succeed. John Hurt portrays the priest who has the unwelcome task of performing the exorcisms and in one loud, blurry sequence is overcome by a demon. It leaves Hurt's character on the floor, writhing and shaking in a manner that had me expecting his chest to burst open with a snarling little demon.
I'm only guessing, but it seems as though director Januz Kaminski (the brilliant cinematographer on Saving Private Ryan) may have been trying for the more subtle approach. However, that may have been abandoned in post-production when the marketing people decided that subtle wouldn't sell.
My hat's off to a really fine cast for wrestling with this confusing, unwieldy plot. Ultimately the whole thing just falls apart and depending on your mood you will either catch yourself yawning or laughing out loud. I was sitting with a collection of critics at the screening and when one of the character's, on-screen, said, "When will this end?", one film reviewer shouted, "Please, end it soon!"
(Reviews provided by 'Q-Brick'.)
Stay tuned...
That's all folks...
DeadPool
