Search
Search results
FileBrowserLite
Business and Utilities
App
FileBrowserLite allows you to try the features of FileBrowser. FileBrowser is the original and...
Smart Plans - Multi Planner
Business and Productivity
App
SmartPlans is a flexible project planner and task manager. It's "Smart" because it manages the time...
Superbosses: How Exceptional Leaders Master the Flow of Talent
Book
A fascinating exploration of the world’s most effective bosses—and how they motivate, inspire,...
Business
PDF Splitter
Business and Productivity
App
Split large PDF document into small ones quickly and flexibly! PDF Splitter is a stand-alone app...
HiCalculator Hide Private Photo.s & Video.s - Password Lock Picture Album Vault & Keep Personal Privacy
Catalogs and Utilities
5.0
Rate It
App
** Trusted by millions of people! It's not only a calculator but also a private photo vault! ...
Rugby League Live 2: Gold Edition
Games and Sports
App
AN INTENSE RUGBY LEAGUE EXPERIENCE!!! The ultimate iPhone & iPad rugby league experience! Tru...
The Leader's Guide to Presenting
Book
Presentations are an inevitable part of a leader's day to day. They are fundamental to delivering...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum (2019) in Movies
Jun 3, 2019
Hoping it Doesn't Become a Victim of its Own Success
The world is trying to kill John Wick (Keanu Reeves)…but not before he kills them first.
Acting: 9
Beginning: 10
Characters: 8
This third installment brings back a lot of the characters we have become familiar with in the first two movies. There’s Wick, of course, striking like a black mamba and trying to kill everything in his path. Winston (Ian McShane) is back as the tasteful Manager of the underworld assassin hotel being his usual charming self. I was excited to see hotel concierge Charon (Lance Reddick) get a larger slice of the action this time around as it was long overdue in my opinion.
The rest of the characters? Meh. I could take them or leave them. Reason being, they mostly felt flat for some reason. Take The Adjudicator (Asia Kate Dillon) for example. It felt like she just showed up to be an asshole for two minutes then she would disappear. Her role was annoying at best. But Wick is who we come to see. And Wick delivers. Who cares if he’s shooting at a bunch of cardboard cut-outs?
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Memorability: 8
Slightly more forgettable than the first two installments as it stumbles through a few parts here and there. There were a number of amazing scenes I can say for certain I haven’t seen done in any other action movie or any movie period. What they did with animals alone was a pleasant treat. I won’t spoil anything that you probably should know already, but I will say that the creativity and the stylistic choices of the kills makes movies like these really hard to forget.
Pace: 10
Plot: 5
There were definitely some parts that left me shaking my head. I don’t know why director Chad Stahelski chose to throw certain things in. It was almost as if they did it for the sake of trying to add more drama. With movies like these, there is no need to force anything as the drama typically comes anyway. The story is all over the place at times, overdone in others.
Resolution: 6
I watched the ending thinking, “Good…but stop there please.” It didn’t leave me wanting more, rather for the series to be done. Not sure what could have been done differently, but I think it stumbles compared to the endings of the first two.
Overall: 86
A solid addition to the franchise for sure. However, I feel it must be said: This series needs to end while it still has life. I know there is a fourth one on the way in a couple of years along with a TV show. Let’s just hope John Wick doesn’t get Hollywooded to death as a victim of its own success.
Acting: 9
Beginning: 10
Characters: 8
This third installment brings back a lot of the characters we have become familiar with in the first two movies. There’s Wick, of course, striking like a black mamba and trying to kill everything in his path. Winston (Ian McShane) is back as the tasteful Manager of the underworld assassin hotel being his usual charming self. I was excited to see hotel concierge Charon (Lance Reddick) get a larger slice of the action this time around as it was long overdue in my opinion.
The rest of the characters? Meh. I could take them or leave them. Reason being, they mostly felt flat for some reason. Take The Adjudicator (Asia Kate Dillon) for example. It felt like she just showed up to be an asshole for two minutes then she would disappear. Her role was annoying at best. But Wick is who we come to see. And Wick delivers. Who cares if he’s shooting at a bunch of cardboard cut-outs?
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Memorability: 8
Slightly more forgettable than the first two installments as it stumbles through a few parts here and there. There were a number of amazing scenes I can say for certain I haven’t seen done in any other action movie or any movie period. What they did with animals alone was a pleasant treat. I won’t spoil anything that you probably should know already, but I will say that the creativity and the stylistic choices of the kills makes movies like these really hard to forget.
Pace: 10
Plot: 5
There were definitely some parts that left me shaking my head. I don’t know why director Chad Stahelski chose to throw certain things in. It was almost as if they did it for the sake of trying to add more drama. With movies like these, there is no need to force anything as the drama typically comes anyway. The story is all over the place at times, overdone in others.
Resolution: 6
I watched the ending thinking, “Good…but stop there please.” It didn’t leave me wanting more, rather for the series to be done. Not sure what could have been done differently, but I think it stumbles compared to the endings of the first two.
Overall: 86
A solid addition to the franchise for sure. However, I feel it must be said: This series needs to end while it still has life. I know there is a fourth one on the way in a couple of years along with a TV show. Let’s just hope John Wick doesn’t get Hollywooded to death as a victim of its own success.