As the movie opens, the country has been without a vice-president for a few weeks (and people actually noticed? This must be a Hollywood movie.) and the search for a replacement has been narrowed down to Senator Laine Hanson (Joan Allen), a woman of staunch moral integrity who believes that her personal life should not interfere with her political one. A smart, intelligent person more than qualified to fill the position; her filling of the position would be the crowning achievement President Jackson Evans' (Jeff Bridges) term of office has been looking for.

However, the road to Hanson's confirmation is hardly paved with gold. Thanks to her political adversary, Rep. Shelly Runyon (Gary Oldman), an ugly sex scandal from her college days is brought up and hangs over the proceedings like a dark storm cloud. The rest of the film deals with issues of sexism, hypocrisy and career opportunism (politics wise) as Hanson stands by story, claiming not only that she was not the center of said scandal, but also that whatever did happen in her past has nothing to do with her taking on the role of Vice-President.

An interesting premise to be sure, but writer/director Rod Lurie covers no new ground here. Instead of dialogue that allows us to get inside these characters and begin to care for them, Lurie fills the screen with sanctimonious speeches that come off as corny and pretentious (Mr. Lurie, personal agendas rarely come off as compelling character chat). Adding in a ridiculous subplot involving a rejected vice presidential hopeful (William Petersen) who may have had a hand in the murder of a young woman only induces head scratching, not surprise, drama nor suspense. Lurie doesn't seem to have a clear sense of what makes a theatrical drama tick (which is odd being that Lurie was a professional film critic prior to being a filmmaker), only a sense of what makes a television movie (and a bad one at that) fill its two-hour running time.

Even on a technical level, the film is sub par. Denis Maloney's cinematography is on a level of a home movie, the editing is choppy and the musical score by Larry Groupe is overbearing to say the least (making Lurie's political laundry list all the more of a groaner to listen to). To be fair, the film had a miniscule budget to work with (around ten million), but I have seen films shot for much less that were far more professionally put together (Steven Soderbergh's sex, lies and videotape instantly hops to mind).

Yet, not all is a loss with The Contender. As a testament to their talent, the ensemble cast manages to rise above Lurie's cinematic muck to give the viewer at least something to watch. Allen once again proves she is one of the better actresses working in film today by giving what is pretty much the role of a political martyr a level of empathy and intelligence. Bridges, in what is mostly a supporting role reminiscent of Michael Douglas' Commander-In-Chief in The American President (minus the romance angle), is also good as is Oldman (surprisingly subdued for once) as the chief villain of the film. My favorite of the supporting cast though is Sam Elliott, who plays one of the president's aides. He chews up the scenery, and seems to be having a fun time doing so.

A strong cast can't save The Contender from being nothing more than a sub-par Lifetime cable network movie. An overly preachy, amateurish political drama that fails on practically every level possible, the film succeeds only in reminding us that political films, when handled badly, are as about as much fun as watching election results with the sound turned down.

It really is a shame that The Contender had to turn out as weak as it did. It certainly had the cast to make it work, but not much else beyond that. If we want to be bored by politics, we'll watch the news for free.

  share with:  Facebook | Digg | other sites