The Contender (2000) User Reviews

Trailer Spoiler!

[davholsea-99002 · 8/10 · 10 September 2020]

This is a really good film, much better than the 6.9 it has here. However, if you watch it on Amazon Video, DO NOT watch the trailer. Incredibly the idiots who set this up make the actual key scene, the whole twist upon which the movie stands, the trailer.

The WHOLE SCENE.

Absolute idiots.

Where Lewinsky meets Lebowski

[Geofbob · 8/10 · 30 April 2001]

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.

So many acting Pros, so few twists

[ferguson-6 · 7/10 · 21 October 2000]

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".

A very accurate portrayal of women in politics

[edith_gagne · 26 March 2001]

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.

Great Acting, only decent story

[Willie-12 · 6/10 · 10 March 2001]

The Contender, in a sense, is a movie that fails. Why? Well the acting is tremendous, let's just get that out of the way right off the bat. Joan Allen and Jeff Bridges are very deserving of their Oscar nominations. However the movie fails because it uses these great actors in what ultimately turns out to be a decent, yet mediocre movie. There was certainly nothing tremendous, or unique about this story. We have seen this all before with our previous president. Sex scandals are condemning, but not enough to keep someone from getting to the position that they want to get to (and keep in mind, they never disclosed to the public that the "incident" never happened, so in the public's mind, the Allen character was...well guilty for lack of a better word). In fact our past President's story is much more riveting because he was the President when the scandal happened, and it happened in the White House. Now I know this movie tries to put a different spin on this issue by using a woman as the character caught in an alleged sex scandal, and suggesting that because it is a woman it is different. In other words a woman would never get a way with this kind of scandal and a man would. However, if they wanted to feed off of that different spin then they should have provided different results from what occurred in the Clinton scandal. Instead the same results were exhibited. The Democrats said "who cares," and the Republicans said "hang her." If they wanted to make it so different then everyone would have wanted her out of the picture, period. This movie also got a little caught up in the "Democrat good, Republican bad" idea. If the story could have been a little more objective, then it would have been a little more powerful. And one more thing, I don't care if it is a woman, a man, a Democrat, or a Republican. If you put someone in the position that the Joan Allen character was in, and they publicly admitted that they did not believe in God, then they would not get confirmed. The bottom line is: 90-95% of Americans believe in some sort of higher deity, and they would not want an atheist second-in-command. Overall, a "missed the mark" movie that could have been so much more. But like I have said before, that's just my opinion.

The Contender started off as one of the most well-balanced political movies I've ever seen

[luke-a-mcgowan · 7/10 · 12 November 2015]

How refreshing it was to watch the first three-quarters of The Contender and see a film that was perfectly well balanced. Conservatives see a film about a righteous Congressman (Gary Oldman) standing up for his beliefs and blocking an affirmative action Vice-President at the expense of more qualified candidates. Liberals see a film about a brave Senator (Joan Allen) who cops abuse about her personal life during a confirmation hearing and refuses to engage because its none of their business and a man would never be subject to such treatment.

Rod Lurie's film is obviously inspired in parts by Aaron Sorkin's then The West Wing, which had just debuted to critical acclaim. As a director, he has his moments but fails in his attempts to emulate the walk-and-talk mastered by Thomas Schlamme. Camera movements are clunky and cuts become necessary, but they are hugely obvious and distracting. During one scene, the camera moves from foot level to focus on Sam Elliott's face, but halfway up it stops and fixates on his chest for several seconds. It looks like someone dropped the camera, caught it midair and then kept going. As a writer, Lurie displays eloquence that Sorkin himself would admire, especially in a bold Presidential address late in the film. His dialogue is sharp and the political games played by the characters is believable and exciting to watch (see especially the final twist). Unlike Sorkin's The American President, Lurie refrains from liberal bias and depicts both sides fairly. Even during a scene in which Oldman and Allen face off over whether abortion is murder or the woman's right to choose, both sides are depicted fairly.

Unfortunately, there are a number of scenes where the film skews heavily to the left. One of the worst offenders is a scene in which Allen's 6 year old son proclaims to his grandfather that a certain tennis move came from "baby Jesus, because baby Jesus made everything," allowing the characters to openly badmouth the influence of church on education. As someone who actually attended a Christian school and was turned off by religion soon after, I found this scene insultingly stupid and simplistic. Allegedly, studio execs including Steven Spielberg skewed the film to depict liberals more favourably, which angered non-political Gary Oldman, who is ultimately depicted as a villain. Up until the final act (and even during parts of it) Oldman's character is one that the President respects even if he doesn't personally agree. His public humiliation is done for political reasons, not personal. However, the final scene has Oldman slink away in defeat while President Jeff Bridges hollers about the high ground. The exact same scene could have played out with minor variations, as Oldman leaves in protest of the President's ability to nominate Allen's character rather than slinking away like a beaten Disney villain.

The acting in this film is excellent. Joan Allen is very subtle as she plays her cards close to the chest. At times I thought her to be a very naive character and she was the victim of bad writing, but when she boldly tells the President why she did not deny the story when she had every ability to, I sat back in admiration despite myself. Gary Oldman is terrific and perhaps one of the few Republicans fairly depicted in film. Jeff Bridges and Sam Elliott cut imposing figures as the President and Chief of Staff, and carry dramatic and powerful moments thanks to their booming voices and commanding presences.

My biggest problem with The Contender is the subplot of Governor Hathaway. It starts well and ends better, but the whole premise of the film is that Bridges wants him but can't have him because Republicans won't forgive him for not saving a girl from drowning (another liberal bias which is insulting to intelligence). However, Oldman quickly snaps Hathaway up as the preferred candidate. When you are facing a smooth confirmation for your best candidate, any President would've seized that opportunity with both hands, glass ceilings be damned. It may be only a small plot hole, but its the plot point that sets up the entire film, so it needs to be addressed.

Great writing, some ups and downs in plausibility but overall an inside view worth viewing

[secondtake · 7/10 · 25 February 2015]

The Contender (2000)

This is an intensely focused political drama that tires, rather well, to show how the insides of the top of American politics works. At stake is a woman is has been nominated for confirmation as Vice-President of the U.S. But she has an enormous amount of baggage —not just liberal politics, but some sexual escapades as a college student and an affair with a friend's husband. So the hearings go afoul.

What makes this click is the writing. It's sharp, surprisingly astute, and sometimes scary for its believable bitterness. Now this doesn't necessarily make this a commanding movie —there are endless inner sanctum meetings and one-on-one power plays—but if you like this kind of thing, it's impressive enough to stick it out.

It's an irony that the ostensible main character, the woman in line to be VP, is relatively weak, played by Joan Allen. (Imagine a real politician, like Hilary or Barbara Boxer in the role instead.) She has all the right lines but she lacks a sense of power that she surely would have if about to be number 2.

Around her are powerful men, including two actors who are really strong—Gary Oldman as an opposing Republican and Jeff Bridges as the President. So the swirling conversations around these issues are driven and pointed. It's good stuff. The writer, Rod Lurie, happens to also be the director, and he does a creditable if not masterful job.

One of the flaws here is the basic premise that this woman would have had such scandal (in political terms) and gotten as far as senator. There are photographs of the one event (the details shift as the plots goes on, however) and television footage implying her affair. These are made plain and obvious beyond normal norms to make a point—the women are held to a different standard than men. But I'm not sure—if there were supposed photographs of a man having a wild sex romp as a college kid, they would probably derail the man's career as well. I'm not saying they should—not for a man or a woman—but that's the reality.

Anyway, the issues are given a fair shake and an uneven treatment with great perception. Never mind the soaring music a times, the acting and writing win the day. They makes it all worthwhile.

Riveting performances and a thought-provoking story. One of the best movies of the year. **** (out of four)

[Movie-12 · 9/10 · 27 December 2000]

THE CONTENDER / (2000) **** (out of four)

After our recent presidential conflicts, Rod Lurie's political drama, "The Contender" is of the most timely and uncommonly absorbing movies this year, even though we may be sick and tired of politics. The film examines political figures and their stand of such controversial issues like abortion, infidelities, and even Clinton's impeachment trial, making this production feel real, as if a behind the scenes look at a sex scandal in Washington DC because it is so well written and portrayed. Interlaced with much thought-provoking material and Academy Award worthy performances, "The Contender" is one of the best pictures of the year.

As the film opens, the country's vice president has recently died, leaving Democratic President Jackson Evans (Jeff Bridges), who is near the end of his final term, choosing a vice president for replacement. Although he recently bared his courage in a failed attempt to save a woman from drowning, Governor Jack Hathaway (William L. Peterson) is turned down by President Evens. Instead, Evens wants to leave a legacy by selecting a woman as vice president, thus chooses a Senator who currently shifted from the Republican party to the Democratic party, Laine Hanson (Joan Allen). The Republican confirmation committee chairman, Shelly Runyon (Gary Oldman), thinks Evans' choice to be self-dignified and inaccurate, and desires Hathaway to take the place of the vice president.

"The Contender" begins on a strong note, only displaying the necessary events. We do not witness the death of the original vice-president because it is not important. We do get to see the heroic action of Governor Hathaway, however, squarely because this event, concluding with a shocking twist, plays a vital role in the movie at a later time. Through brilliant directing and editing, the story provides an increasing amount of tension within the characters, especially the Joan Allen and Jeff Bridges characters.

In a cruel attempt to prove the insecurities of the vice-presidential candidate, Runyon uncovers information that places Hanson's morality in question. The situation is whether or not she participated in public sex with two men (at the same time) while 19 years of age in college. The information is leaked to the press, while Runyon uses the discussion to bring the subject in the hearings. "What I say the American people will believe. And do you know why? Because I will have a very big microphone in front of me," states Runyon. The democrats are extremely weary over this case because 1) they know Runyon's statement is true and 2) Hanson refuses to acknowledge anything regarding her alleged sexual adventures. Even so, the president supports his candidate.

The movie succeeds with its accurate and involving performances. Joan Allen is Award material in a performance that is tense, taut, and engaging. Christian Slater is frantic and energetic as a novice reporter. Jeff Bridges is entirely convincing as the President of the United States. His prestige is convincing and he exhibits a powerful, detailed attitude, resulting in a superb performance. Gary Oldman is perfect with a sly, cunningly cocky and self-confident performance that fits his character extremely well; there is a very real possbility his work will be remembered come Academy Award time.

"The Contender" succeeds to a high degree because it makes us to examine our own beliefs and possible reactions to such a pragmatic issue; would we, as individuals, want a vice-president who is a sleaze ball, or as a character puts it "with a mouth full of c*ck." What makes the film even more extraordinarily enthralling is that it never until the end reveals whether Laine actually did participate in the immoral acts. This is a very thought-provoking story, full of surprising twists and a meaningful message.

Rather spoilt by an outburst of sentiment

[pfgpowell-1 · 7/10 · 12 February 2007]

Bleeding heart American liberals will probably love this film, while Yanks more disposed to neo-con values will probably hate it. Being neither (and not even an American), I feel that this works rather well as a film, but — for me — is spoilt by the huge dollops of American treacle poured over it in the final scenes. The 10/10 marks given here by other — probably bleeding heart liberal — reviewers baffle me. First, NO film should get 10/10, in order to leave that mark for some future work so extraordinarily good that it leaves everything else in the shade. Second, I suspect that top mark owes rather more to applauding the sentiments emoted by the film than the quality of the film itself. But that quality is good. I think Jeff Bridges always gives a good performances and seems to choose those parts which allow him to give a good performance. Sam Elliot as the ultra-pragmatic foul-mouthed chief-of-staff is also hugely watchable, as is the quiet dignity of Joan Allen, the vice-presidential nominee with possible a dark secret. Our very own British Gary Oldman gives equal good value for money as the committee chairman in whom principle shades off into almost pure malice. Tension is also well-sustained to the end, with a plot that has sufficient twists and turns. Some failings of the film would include the rookie and principled Congressman portrayed by Christian Slater who gets himself appointed to the congressional committee ratifying Allen's nomination even though he has no experience — the justification for his appointment is never explained and Slater has no organic role in the plot at all. What is he there for other than to symbolise that 'our young are our future' or some such guff? And just why is Oldman (committee chairman Sheldon Runyon) so against Allen? These are, though, minor quibbles, and in many ways the more petty the gripes, the better the film. But the film's sentiment... I know that the U.S. provides by far the biggest market for Hollywood and is thus the market Hollywood tries to satisfy, but please spare a thought for the rest of us non-Americans who don't — and cannot even be expected to — share in the sentimental fiction that is the U.S. soul. (And I am, of course, bound to admit that all other nations, including the Brits, have such national fictions. We, for example, still fondly regard ourselves as 'a nation of seafarers'; the French are convinced that every last man, woman and dog is 'an intellectual'.) The U.S. fiction, as promulgated in The Contender, is that America is the home of ultimate truth, decency, honesty and freedom (achievable, of course, once all the bad Yanks out there, like Governor Hathaway, who tried to rig his own act of heroism, have been overcome and brought to book.) Now, admittedly, The Contender was made in 2000, but Guantanamo Boy, Abu Ghraib, the whole Iraq fiasco, various acts of massacre, but also the Vietnam War etc do rather spoil the 'home of the brave' etc act. In fact, they make it seem like a joke in poor taste. But, as I say, that is no criticism of the film as a film.

Pleasant surprise, excellent performances

[Travis_Bickle01 · 9/10 · 24 July 2005]

Excellent political thriller-drama with a great cast which certainly delivered. The story isn't very original, but that doesn't bother. Jeff Bridges was very good and funny as the president of the United States. He was always very relaxed and human during his role. The attitude, the way of thinking, the nonchalance... it made his performance quite amazing. Jeff Bridges is one of my favourite actors. He capable of playing every role. Be honest, who would have thought "the dude" would make an excellent president as well?

Furthermore I loved Joan Allen's and Gary Oldman's performance as well. Both were excellent. As well as Christian Slater playing the young idealist. "The Contender" certainly deserves this rating and I'm convinced it even deserves a higher rating, something like 7.3.

"The Contender" is political thriller-drama which is certainly worth watching. Although this movie doesn't want to make a certain (moral) statement, I loved the following quote by Joan Allen's character: "Principles only mean something when you stick to them when its inconvenient."

9/10

I really have mixed feelings on this one.......

[great_sphinx_42 · 7/10 · 16 March 2001]

On the one hand, this is the rare and admirable story of a woman fighting for power, and the opposition any such woman would encounter is not candy-coated. This nation will not have a woman president for quite some time yet- I believe we will have a black male president first, even though women are more than half the population and blacks are something like 14%. This is still a country deeply afraid of women, and the combination of politics and the double standard is a vicious one. It also briefly tackles the hypocrisy of anti-abortionists and the separation of church and state. I admire the film-makers for addressing these issues, but I also have my 'howevers'. First of all, the ending was frankly overwrought. Second of all, this movie is ostensibly a fictional work. If you believe that, you probably also believe 'Planet of the Apes' wasn't about the mistreatment of blacks and that 'The Crucible' wasn't about McCarthyism. This movie was at least in part about the Clinton administration, although I think that was inevitable. You can no longer make a movie about sex in politics and have it not be at least somewhat about Clinton's terms in office. It's also frankly pro-Democrat. Now the thing is, I don't have a problem with it defending the Clinton administration or it being pro-Democrat. While I disagree with some of the things Clinton did, his sexual life is his business. That's not being anti-morality, it's being pro-privacy, and I applaud a movie that upholds that ideal when our culture is awash in sleaze and our bedroom behavior is daily fodder for tabloids. I'm not Democrat, but I'm even less inclined toward Rebulicans, and I will agree with another reviewer here that no Democrat is so angelic as Joan Allen's character, although there are certainly Republicans like Gary Oldman's. As for Hollywood being awash in liberals- I would imagine so. Film-making is on some levels still a creative endeavor, creative people will have a higher tendency towards liberalism, and conservatives are all for advocating environments that suffocate creativity and free-thinking. On the other hand, there has already been a very fine and honest movie made about the Clintons- it's called 'Primary Colors', and it comes with a strong recommendation from me. I cannot believe there is a politician as noble as Laine Hanson- rising to that level of power ensures that. Indeed, I believe there are very few people that noble. Some of the film-makers behind 'The Contender' might well have a spark of it, but were that spark full-blown, this would have been a more honest film.

Important, Dynamic Film

[jhclues · 9/10 · 16 October 2000]

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.

Dirty politics....

[byron-116 · 7/10 · 5 July 2020]

The Contender is a powerful film with good guys (Democrats) and bad guys (Republicans)... How far can one go in the filth politics ? It's a must see movie especially now with the 2020 Presidential elections coming up in November.

Implausible--Falls Apart in the 2nd Half

[sisyphus-12 · 1/10 · 15 March 2001]

This movie could have been great. The first half was dramatic, compelling, believeable, and character-driven. The 2nd half degenerated into the tawdriest and most unbelieveable sort of political propagandizing imagineable. It's hard to believe, in fact, that the person who wrote the first half of this movie also wrote the 2nd half.

The first half of this movie is very human...a story about people in politics, being tested by morally ambiguous circumstances. Their actual politics, while clearly laid out, are secondary. Moviemakers used to wisely recognize the folly of imposing their own political views on their audience, and made sure that political expressions were limited to those that were fairly universally accepted--truth, honesty, and so forth. Remember "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"? "The Contender," however, goes out of its way to do the exact opposite.

Near the beginning of the movie,Laine Hanson (an ubelieveably saintly Republican-turned-Democrat) is speaking to her father, a retired Republican Governor, whom the filmmakers gratuitously have chide his grandchild for his kindergarten teacher's having mentioned Jesus in the classroom. Teachers are there to "teach, not preach," and he denounces her remark about Jesus as "superstition"--quite beside anything remotely pertinent to the story. His remark, though, is pointed, his attitude is bizarrely sneering for what the writers clearly hope to pass off as an aside. The movie gets much worse, though. Later, during what is supposed to be a rousing and morally superior closing statement before the Senate Confirmation Committee that has been questioning her moral suitability, she proudly declares herself to be an atheist who worships in the "chapel of democracy." During the same speech, she declares that she wants to remove "every gun from every household," that she supports a woman's sacred right to choose, and so on and so forth. Standard political boilerplate. (Curiously, she states at one point that she left the Republican party when they moved away from the values she espouses. I wonder...when has the Republican party EVER espoused gun banning, abortion, abolition of the death penalty, or any of the causes for which Laine now so zealously crusades? Are the filmmakers trying to make her seem thoughtful and fairminded in her zeal? Come on!)

Okay, so what's wrong with this? She's a politician expressing political ideals? First of all, the speech is hoaky as can be, with music clearly meant to raise us to a pitch of (left-wing) patriotism...the effect, though is embarrassing. I was uncomfortable for Joan Allen having to recite such awful lines. Second, she's is supposed to be a moderate Democrat...yet all the views she expresses extremely left-wing. Even Republicans in this movie espouse leftist ideology (like her father). The one person who expresses a conservative viewpoint is Gary Oldman's character, a political hardball player who during the confirmation hearings is given to snarling at this poor woman for supporting a "holocause" of "unborn babies." The cliches are fast and furious. To show, however, that Runyon (Oldman's character) is--or WAS-- a good man, the writers trot out his haggard wife and have her remind him of the time he stood for something good...the time he stood up for hate crime legislation! Amazing. Third, the filmmakers take all this silly rhetoric as seriously as Laine Hanson does! In fact, if this movie's failure can be summed up, it is probably that the moviemakers are as gravely serious about the protagonist's trenchant ideology as she is. The term for this is: Authorial Intrusion. The moviemakers committ is, big time.

The problem with this movie is not that it favors liberal ideology, of course. It's that it favors ANY ideology. You cannot promote any agenda as brazenly and aggressively as this movie does, and not have it throw the whole movie off kilter...like a shopping cart with a bad wheel. The ending of this movie--which I will not divulge--is improbably beyond belief. This movie has been billed as a political thriller. It isn't. It's a hybrid between a cheesy soap opera, and a propaganda film. Gary Oldman and Joan Allen deliver great performances, though, and if this movie is worth seeing at all, it is just to see two great actors practicing their craft.

crackling political drama

[Buddy-51 · 21 July 2001]

Writer/director Rod Lurie's `The Contender' marks a significant advance in both technique and storytelling ability for this fledgling filmmaker over his sole previous cinematic effort, `Deterrence.' This former L.A. film critic-turned-filmmaker has created a crackerjack political thriller attuned to the temper of its times. In this era in which one politician after another has fallen victim to the cutthroat `politics of personal destruction' as practiced in the media, in the committee hearing room and in the backrooms of campaign headquarters around the nation, `The Contender' emerges as a timely, astute and politically savvy drama.

Like most contemporary films that deal with political issues, `The Contender' demonstrates an obvious left leaning bias. As usual, it is the Democrats who are portrayed as the righteous speakers of truth and the Republicans who are shown as the scheming, unctuous and conniving dispensers of hatred and rumormongering. Jeff Bridges stars as President Jackson Evans, a well-meaning, seemingly moral man who, upon the sudden death of his vice president, nominates a woman, Senator Laine Hanson, to be his replacement. Gary Oldman plays the Republican chairman who will stop at nothing in his efforts to torpedo the nomination, even if that means exposing her rather torrid sexual past for all the world to see (although, in many ways, his obsession with ruining the chances of a candidate he feels to be less qualified in favor of one who is more beloved as a national figure makes little practical sense because wouldn't he, as a member of the rival party, be MORE inclined to support someone he thought would bring trouble to the present administration?)

If you can see past the partisan propaganda, you will find `The Contender' to be one of the most riveting films of the past several years. In many ways, it reminds one of those Biblical spectaculars that moviemakers like Cecil B. DeMille used to churn out in the 1950's, the ones that would allow us to wallow in the depiction of all sorts of `sinful' activities, yet when the divine judgments began to fall on the perpetrators, permit us to feel morally superior to it all at the same time. In a similar way, `The Contender,' may come out foursquare against the obsession we seem to have concerning the sex lives of our elected officials – but it sure has a fun time devoting two solid hours to the topic. And its fun is ours.

One of the reasons that `The Contender' succeeds so well is because Laine Hanson, as portrayed by the brilliant Joan Allen, is an endlessly fascinating and enigmatic character. We never know quite what to make of her and it is this sense of moral imbalance that draws us in to her plight. Had she been made an innocent victim or a goody-two-shoes, she would quickly lose our interest. As the President, seemingly more concerned with ordering up spectacular dishes from the White House kitchen than with the pressing concerns of affairs of state, Jeff Bridges cuts just as believable and compelling a figure.

As with virtually all films of a political nature, the characters' actions are occasionally inexplicable within the context of practical politics. For example, President Evans rejects one of his top candidates for the VP position for ludicrous reasons. When Governor Jack Hathaway attempts but fails to rescue a woman from her vehicle that has crashed to the bottom of a river, Evans tells Hathaway that he believes the Republicans will try to bring up parallels to Chappaquiddick in an attempt to sink his nomination. Not only is that a patently absurd possibility, but Evans seems blithely unconcerned about the much worse drubbing he and his eventual nominee end up undergoing. Which leads us to the next implausibility – Evans' sticking by Hanson far past the point where any real president would have asked for the candidate to withdraw her name. Oh well, `The Contender' may not always ring true in its plotting, but it definitely gets the job done as a piece of titillating pulp drama.

My only serious complaint with the film comes in its closing stretches. Perhaps it is too much, in these days of mandatory happy endings and feel-good emotionalism, to expect the type of clear-eyed cynical conclusions we were treated to in movies like `The Candidate' or `The Best Man,' but the upbeat, fairy tale resolution here is unworthy of all the good stuff that has gone before it. By climbing onto a soapbox and deigning to lecture to us all, Lurie cops out on both Hanson and the audience - striving for the type of phony inspirationalism that went out with `Mr. Smith Goes to Washington' way back in the 1930's. Such an obvious sop to the box office leaves us with a bit of a sour aftertaste after all is said and done. (Also, Lurie needs to shed himself of the gimmick he seems to have latched onto in both his films thus far – that of the melodramatic `surprise' turnabout ending. It didn't work in `Deterrence' and it doesn't work here).

Yet, despite its sundry flaws, `The Contender' emerges as one of the most compelling and fast-moving two hours you are likely to see in a long time. You may feel like taking a shower when it's all over (maybe that explains the need Lurie may have had in providing a `moral bath' in the last 15 minutes or so), but you will at least have had a great time getting dirty.

good political thriller

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 3 August 2016]

Virginia Governor Jack Hathaway (William Petersen) is fishing under a highway when a car crashes into the water. He jumps in but fails to rescue the driver. He is nevertheless heralded as a hero and becomes a leading candidate to replace the recently deceased VP of the second-term Democratic U.S. President Jackson Evans (Jeff Bridges). Evans instead chooses Senator Laine Hanson (Joan Allen). She faces opposition led by Republican Congressman Shelley Runyon (Gary Oldman) who prefers Hathaway. An old college incident threatens to derail her nomination.

It is sharply written. It is definitely left-leaning. The politics is also a certain era when there is more political intrigue between the parties. The characters are well-drawn and portrayed by great actors. There is no weak performance. It's a little too broadly written at times like the evil Runyon character. Hanson is too principled about the college incident which makes her too flawless. This is a good political thriller.

The Contender: 7/10

[movieguy1021 · 7/10 · 24 December 2002]

Rod Lurie's The Contender begins with a bang when a car drives over a pier and into the water where Governor Jack Hathaway (William L. Petersen) is fishing. He tries to save her but fails. Meanwhile, President Jackson Evans (Jeff Bridges) needs to appoint a vice president, since his just died. He's been in office for six-and-a-half years, and will appoint one as a `swan song'. So, after Hathaway's act of heroism, he seems like a shoo-in, right? Nope, since Evans is thinking of appointing Senator Laine Hanson (Joan Allen), much to the dismay of many, including Representative Shelly Runyon (Gary Oldman).

Runyon and others don't want a female vice president, so they go and try to dig up dirt about Hanson's past. They finally conjure up a shocking sex thing from college. Rather than admit it, Hanson says that it isn't appropriate and `nobody would care how many people a man had sex with in college.'

The Contender is an enthralling political mystery. It takes many twists and turns that you wouldn't expect. The ending is a nice but low-key slap-in-the-face, with it trying to squeeze a moral into it somewhere. Where most political movies have flaws, this one does, also. First off, they throw in too many characters for their own good. Not having enough is a problem, but too many is worse, because it will confuse, and ultimately bore, your viewers. I'm not saying, in any way, that The Contender is boring, but if they had toned down on the number of characters it would have been better.

I thought Allen was great-she displayed the right amount of sensitivity, and cunning, that this role needed. She may not be the largest name in Hollywood, but she is a respected actress. Oldman was great, also-I thought he looks somewhat like Woody Allen (*sheepish grin*). His vileness seemed true. Bridges took off from his normal comedic-type roles (although he did have a few funny parts), and also displayed talent.

Christian Slater played a role of Representative Webster, someone who seemed to get very involved in the whole scandal. Slater, to me, seems like a man whose name I know of and I know has been around for a while but I haven't actually seen a movie with him. Now that isn't true. I enjoyed him in this role. The intelligent script (written by the director), which, at first, seems simple, snowballs into directions you wouldn't expect, and it's fun (I guess you could say).

I read that directed Lurie was an atheist, which he incorporated into the movie (Hanson is one). While I respect his decision, I thought it was kind of shameless promotion (not the best words). You can see how this situation parallels the government of today. You can actually feel for Hanson, which I was glad for, because for movies like this you need to get into the characters. Unfortunately, we couldn't do that with supporting ones. There's some dude named Kermit, and Saul Rubinek is some government person. But who? Don't ask me.

The Contender is a very interesting and entertaining movie not without flaws but is still enjoyable.

My rating: 7/10

Rated R for strong sexual content and language.

Two-thirds brilliant

[Time Tripper · 7/10 · 22 December 2000]

It would be hard to talk about this movie without revealing too many of the plot twists. What I feel like I can say is this: On a scale of 1 to 10 I'd give this movie an 8. Why? First, Joan Allen is an awesome actress. Second, the movie was good, but had some flaws. The first act was brilliant. It was interesting, it set up the characters, and it got you hooked. The second act was also very good. It threw some good plot developments at you, and was loaded with surprises that kept you wondering what would happen next. Unfortunately, the third act of this movie wasn't bad, but lacked the greatness of the first two acts. The focus of the movie seems to slowly shift from the main character (the vice presidential nominee) to the president about half-way through the second act. The president in this movie is a portrayed well, and could probably carry his own movie, but I really don't like it when movies do this kind of shifting. Then, the film's final scene is extremely similar to the last scene of "The American President." (If you're going to rip-off another movie, then it's a good idea to rip-off a good one, so at least they got that right.) I'm also not clear on what Christian Slater's character really had to do with the outcome of the movie. On a more trivial note, there was a small problem with accuracy in this movie. Hardly any of the sets in this movie looked like their real life counter-parts (which most Americans are familiar with thanks to CNN and C-SPAN). Personally, I would also think that the V.P.'s nomination would be derailed by her controversial views on religion, rather than who or how many people she had been physically intimate with 20 years ago. The point of the movie is that there's just some questions that people shouldn't have to answer. Remember, this film came out during a presidential election where one candidate was avoiding questions about his drunk driving record/alleged drug use, while the other candidate was trying to down-play the fact that his predecessor had been impeached for answering a question he shouldn't have (and, yes, they do mention Pres. Clinton by name in the movie, which makes we wonder if the movie is set 8 or 12 years in the future). Overall, I would recommend this movie to you if you like political thrillers or movies that deal with controversial topics.

deserving

[mister_knobbs · 10/10 · 20 August 2006]

Great flick, worthy of a 10 and higher rating than IMDb users have given it. Mulitple worthy performances, esp. Jeff Bridges in one of his best among trademark eccentric roles; writing is flawless and no cheesy plot twists geared towards non-intelligent viewers, typical for American viewers. And the final tie-in with the first seen, tough to see coming and proves the writing's prowess. A ++ in every sense, one of the most underrated classics of all time. A plethora of actors here making great performances - Sam Elliot, William Petersen, Christian Slater - who hasn't done much since, nor much in the few years prior, and of course Oldman who I could not recognize for a good portion of the flick - kudos to the producers for leaving the cast till the end, I had the benefit of not reading publicity on the film which kept me guessing and enriched the experience. Again, go see this film and let's give it the ranking it deserves fellow IMDb users!

This was almost a great movie

[philip_vanderveken · 7/10 · 19 July 2005]

That hypocrisy and breaking each other's careers is a common game in politics isn't new. I guess it happens in every country and has happened at any point in history. That Hollywood would come up with a movie about it, was something that I already saw coming a long time ago. There are already movies with a more political subject ("JFK", "Nixon",...), but somehow they have never made a movie with political back stabbing as the only subject. This movie has and to make it even a little bit more interesting, they have added a female contender for the post of Vice-President, something that hasn't even occurred in reality.

When senator Laine Hanson, who once shifted from the Republican Party to the Democratic, is nominated to become the new Vice President following the death of the previous office holder, not everybody in and outside the White House is very pleased with that. President Jackson Evans has chosen her over a more qualified and popular candidate, because he wanted to leave a legacy of being the first president to have a woman in the office of vice-president. But President Evans might miss his appointment with history when suddenly an allegation - which she doesn't want to deny or approve - appears that senator Hanson had been involved in a sexual orgy as a 19 year old in college. The Republican confirmation committee chairman has leaked this information to the press, while using the press discussion as a forum to bring it into the hearings. He did this because he wanted another governor - who had become a national hero after he almost saved a young woman from a car that crashed from a bridge into the river where he had been fishing - to become the new Vice President...

Before the 'grand finale' I was about to give this movie a really very high rating, probably somewhere in between 7.5/10 and 8/10. But then they had to throw in a cheap speech about how great the American nation and its people are, how their democracy will always win from the cheaters,... I can assure you, my rating suddenly plummeted. I really hated that cheap flag waving and blasé patriotism. The only reason why I didn't give this movie a very low rating, was that I liked the biggest part of the story and the acting in it. Jeff Bridges for instance was very convincing as the President, but Joan Allen and Gary Oldman did a very fine job as well.

Rod Lurie is a complete stranger to me, but I admire the fact that he has written the story and directed it himself. Let's say that for 95% of the time he has done a good job, although it sometimes was a bit slow and too obvious that he was inspired by the famous Lewinski-Clinton case. Still, I could see past those little 'problems', if only he didn't have to start preaching in the last part. That's why I give this movie a score in between 6.5/10 and 7/10. Not bad, but it could have been a lot better.

A contender for awards

[geoffreyharris2003 · 9/10 · 18 August 2020]

Brilliant film, great story and script and tremendous acting by all concerned. Gary Oldman in particular stands out, also very appropriate at this time with the state of US politics.

Everyone Has An Agenda

[LeonLouisRicci · 6/10 · 9 February 2013]

The Movie's left wing bias is obvious. Everyone has a bias. Everyone has an agenda. So that shouldn't surprise anyone. There is a heavy handed product here and a noble one. It is put together quite well and the performances from all involved are very good.

It is the over written, over the top script that fails the Movie and muddles the message. It has been blasted for its completely Liberal bias, but there are things here that are not at all favorable to the Democrats. The President is not without faults and at times seems quite a buffoon ("too bad about the Munster Cheese") and there is one major plot point that is nothing less than damning to the Dems.

Sometimes it comes across as complete hooey and frankly disappointing with glaring signs of weak writing ideology. The Nominee's " I believe in..." speech has a ridiculous feel to it and the President's last address is as corny as it gets with swelling, obtrusive Music. This is at best a good, if inconsistent, try at postulating a position and at worst an embarrassing episode of Political grandstanding.

An intelligent political film from Hollywood with an honest political slant - break out the champagne

[Spleen · 8/10 · 2 August 2001]

In the real world Hanson would never become president (she doesn't in the film, either, but it's hinted that she might in the future). That she's a woman is the least of her problems. Her real obstacles are, in ascending order: being a trifle too clear-headed, being honest, and being an atheist. (Actually it's the last two together that damn her.) And that's why the film is so good. The plot requires a candidate with unfashionable beliefs and integrity, and the script has the guts to actually give her both. The speeches in this film - all of them - were clearly written by people who took the time to try to understand what people who say such things believe, and why.

This is not a simplistic film, whatever you may have been told. Nor are the characters simplistic. How does one tell if a character has been poorly developed? Most people employ the completely unreliable "black and white" test: measure a character's goodness; if it is higher than some arbitrary level, the character is too good; if it is lower than some other arbitrary level, the character is too evil. This is a ridiculous way to think, even subconsciously. There's no reason WHATEVER, in ANY kind of fiction, why a character shouldn't be very good or very bad, or why the entire fictional world shouldn't be populated by people who are one or the other. The real test we should employ is this: does the character's motivation make sense? And the answer, in this film, is yes. In every case yes. -I've heard people say otherwise, but never convincingly. I've heard it said (for instance) that we don't know why the president never asks Hanson to stand down, when in fact it's made perfectly clear to anyone paying attention: he's stubborn, he wants her, and - this is the more subtle point - he half realises all along that he would demean himself by doing so. Whether such considerations would weigh with actual presidents is beside the point, since it's perfectly believable that they'd weigh with HIM.

The film makes but four mistakes worth remarking upon, only one or two of which matter. The camerawork could be improved. Lurie decided to go with the camera-following-the-characters documentary approach, which is never a good idea - but he drops this foolish affectation in all the important scenes, so we can forgive him. And the president's speech at the end... in real life, I know, he would wrap himself even more in the flag and make even less sense, but we, the audience, ought to have been given something better. Still, what matters is THAT he gave the speech, not what in particular he said in it. So we can forgive THAT. -Then there's this: Hanson does finally confess to someone what really happened on the night in question. No reason why she shouldn't; but WE should not have been told what happened. The point of the film is that it doesn't matter; and if it doesn't matter, we needn't be told. I, for one, wasn't even curious.

As for the fourth mistake...

Runyon's nefarious plan seems to go off without a hitch, and Lurie is savage on a political process that would allow this to happen, but two elements of that process escape close scrutiny: the press, and the public. (The latter, indeed, escapes all scrutiny.) Runyon leaks his dirt to the press, who dutifully make hay of it, in order to morally outrage the public, who are dutifully outraged. His plan would have failed had either press or public refused to cooperate. How does the PUBLIC, in particular, escape blame? In a democracy - even one with an electoral system as absurd as that of the United States - the electorate cannot deny responsibility for the way its representatives behave. Why does nobody in the film criticise Joe Voter, or Joe Tabloid-Buyer?

I confess to not minding THIS lapse very much (even though it's something I feel strongly about). The film is generally so much more intelligent than you'd expect it to be. Look, for instance, at the way Hanson's interrogation is structured. Anyone can see how clever Runyon is in laying political snares, but only Hanson can see how unintentionally clever he is in laying MORAL snares. (She isn't caught by any of the latter, but she IS grazed.) It's really two interrogations at once, and only she - and the audience - can see them both.

Outstanding

[adumas · 7/10 · 16 October 2000]

Edge of your seat excitement. Fast paced. Never a boring moment. And socially relevant. Rod Lurie is a great writer/director as well as a great movie critic. He's lead us to many a gem and did this one himself. Mega kudos.

One of the worst and most manipulative political movies one will ever see

[danielf-crawford · 1/10 · 22 October 2014]

I looked forward to seeing this movie because I admire the work of Jeff Bridges, Sam Elliott, Gary Oldman and Joan Allen. After seeing this film, I hoped they had been paid well. It certainly did not showcase their talent.

The Contender has no characters, just caricatures - no script, but cliché piled on top of cliché - no plot, just a two-hour harangue filled with every bumper-sticker political slogan imaginable. If it was meant to be an intelligent criticism of the state of American politics, it actually fell below the actual state of American politics (if such a thought is even conceivable).

Contemporary screenplays provide more than ample evidence of the general poverty of writing in Hollywood, but The Contender has to rank as one of the worst political screenplays ever. Every politician is a cynical and amoral SOB and though I may tend to agree with the characterization, it would have been useful to have someone show some small degree of integrity. Of course, Ms. Allen is Ms. Integrity through and through - she seems consistently honest, though one marvels at the superficiality of her political philosophy and the motivation for her behavior.

At the conclusion of the film, the director informs us that he made the movie "for our daughters". If I wanted my daughter to enter politics, live a life of personal integrity, and actually do something positive for this country, this would be the last film I would recommend to her.