Product Details

• Actors: Joan Allen, Jeff Bridges, Sam Elliott, Philip Baker Hall, Kathryn Morris
• Directors: Rod Lurie
• Format: Closed-captioned, Color, Dolby, DVD, Widescreen, NTSC
• Language: English
• Region: Region 1 (U.S. and Canada only. Read more about DVD formats.)
  
• Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
• Number of discs: 1
• Rating: R (Restricted)
• Studio: Dreamworks Video
• DVD Release Date: March 6, 2001
• Run Time: 126 minutes
• Average Customer Review: 3.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (174 customer reviews)
• ASIN: B00003CXP7
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #8,467 in Movies & TV (See Bestsellers in Movies & TV)
• For more information about "The Contender" visit the Internet Movie Database (IMDb)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com essential video

Depending on your perspective, The Contender can be praised and damned for the same reasons. A political thriller with an insider's view, it's deadly earnest in its defense of truth, justice, and the American way, but writer-director (and former film critic) Rod Lurie resorts to the same manipulation that his film purports to condemn. But with political savvy, a timely idea (a female vice president), and a cast of first-rate actors, this high-office chess game is unabashedly entertaining. You can argue with Lurie's tactics, but you can't fault his patriotic passion.

In a role written especially for her, Joan Allen is outstanding (if a bit too saintly) as the Republican-turned-Democrat senator who is chosen by the president (Jeff Bridges) to fill a vice presidential vacancy. Bridges is a cagey chief executive, seemingly aloof as he gleefully challenges the White House's 24-hour kitchen staff but more than a match for the embittered and unscrupulous congressman (Gary Oldman) who plots to destroy Allen's character with seemingly dark secrets from her past.

As a gender-switching response to the Lewinsky scandal, The Contender asks potent questions with its impassioned plea for integrity in public service. That makes this a film well worth defending, and the stellar cast (which includes Christian Slater and William Petersen) triumphs over most of the plot's hokey machinations. The ideas are more compelling than their execution, however, and although Lurie's climactic revelation is a vast improvement over the reckless cheat of his previous film Deterrence, it still threatens to tarnish the gloss of an otherwise fascinating film. --Jeff Shannon

Product Description

When the truth becomes a weapon, power comes at a stunning price. Gary Oldman, Joan Allen, Jeff Bridges and Christian Slater deliver electrifying performances in this controversial, suspenseful and critically-acclaimed thriller that Ebert & Roeper and the Movies call "exciting and unusually intelligent, two very enthusiastic thumbs up!" Sometimes you can assassinate a leader without firing a shot.

See all Editorial Reviews

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

11 of 14 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Not of "what is," but a representation of the possibility of politics, December 20, 2005

By	Kevin Mahoney (Perkasie, PA USA) - See all my reviews

I must admit from the onset that I am not one to sit down and write reviews here. But after reading some of the reviews, I feel compelled to write one of "The Contender."

Others have done an excellent job of providing a plot summary, so I will spare you the repetition. I want to address some of the reviews that have bashed the movie for being "totally unrealistic" or "biased," especially those who explicitly state their "liberal" leanings.

First, "The Contender" makes no claims to be "objective," nor should the movie be judged by a "realisitic" litmus test. Yes, the movie is polemical. It makes no bones about its leanings. Personally, I don't think this should be grounds for dismissing the movie. I found the movie incredibly refreshing for 1) providing a critical, and cutting, progressive critique of the "culture wars" that dominate so much of our public, political discourse; 2) by not being limited by the demands of being "realistic," "The Contender" gives us a glimpse of the possibility of public discourse, grounded in the SPIRIT of the US Constitution and representative democracy. Too often political thrillers limit themselves to the intrigue of negotiating and manipulating the strings of bureaucratic power within the terms of that power. By contrast, "The Contender" asks "what if?" That is, what would it look like for someone to act on an ethical basis? What would it mean to stand on principle?

When I first watched "The Contender," I didn't really know the details of the movie, and was frankly looking for something that would be fun to watch. I love the genre of political thrillers, but I also don't expect much beyond the demands of the genre (Patterson and Grisham have really dominated how political thrillers are brought to the screen). Yet, "The Contender" went beyond the genre. Instead of the well-(market)tested version of the political thriller, it felt more like an inquiry into the principles of our Constitutional democracy that stands in stark contrast to how our democracy is currently practiced. It was refreshing to see a film of possibility that resisted a cynical representation of political life or that simply reconfirmed the easy message that "the government is corrupt."

In addition, the film is beautifully filmed. It's quiet when it should be quiet. The angles and the juxtapositions of scenes are masterful.

If you're looking for a "realistic" political thriller, then, admittedly, "The Contender" is not for you. You'll find yourself frustrated by the film's principles. But if you approach the film as a reflection upon the principles of a Constitutional democracy (from a decidedly progressive position), then you just might find yourself intrigued and thoughtful.

I say this as someone who is a committed lefty. I think that our democracy is limited and a representational democracy is not the end of democracy...that the realm of democratic participation needs to be extended. I have worked for years as an activist, organizer, and critic of the Right's domination of poltical life, unbridled capitalism, and the rise of Empire in the post-Cold War world. I am by no means someone who believes the system is working. All the more my surprise to find such possibility in this little film.

10 of 13 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars A Political Story About Process, Not Ideology, August 3, 2004

By	A. Bowdoin Vanriper (Marietta, GA USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: The Contender [VHS] (VHS Tape)

Political junkies will have a wonderful time with _The Contender_, relishing its vivid characters, fancy political footwork, and twist-laden story. It's one of the best films in recent years about the *process* (as opposed to the content) of politics: a worthy addition to classics like _Mr. Smith Goes to Washington_, _Advise and Consent_, and _Wag The Dog_. If that's your cup of tea, add at least half-a-star to the four I've given it.

The four stars are for the viewer who's *not* a political junkie and just wants two hours of entertainment. _The Contender_ delivers that, with an impressively complex script and a large cast of interesting characters played to the hilt by first-rate actors who all seem to be having a great time. Jeff Bridges, in particular, is a revelation as the President. The film's flaws are matters of degree: the plot has one too many conveniently timed surprises and Gary Oldman's character, Rep. Shelby Runyon, is brilliantly *played* but underwritten.

When _The Contender_ came out in 2000, it was widely assumed to be a commentary on the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. It is, but it's also a commentary on many similar episodes: the failed nominations of John Tower, Robert Bork, Lani Guinier, and Zoe Baird; the savaging of both Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill; and the toppling of Speakers of the House Tom Foley and Newt Gingrich. Writer-director Rod Lurie is clearly outraged by what's become known as "the politics of personal destruction," and he attacks it savagely and convincingly here. His outrage is refreshingly non-partisan: The villains of his story are not *defined* by their party or their ideology, but by their willingness to abandon their principles for petty political gains.

It would be easy to write this movie off as another Hollywood story about saintly liberals and evil conservatives . . . easy, but wrong. Reverse the political polarity of the story (make Joan Allen's character a staunch conservative and Gary Oldman's a solid liberal) and, with very little adjustment, it still "works" and the same message still comes through: at the end of the day, there *are* things more important than winning.

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Oldman controversy is what sustains this film, September 14, 2004

By	Andy Orrock (Dallas, TX) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (VINE VOICE)

Upon seeing 'Bourne Supremacy' recently, I was reminded of Joan Allen's other movies - she's fantastic in a relatively small role in the recently released 'The Notebook,' incredible as Pat Nixon (a role she was literally born to play) in Oliver Stone's 'Nixon.' Here, in 'The Contender' she's a Geraldine Ferraro-like putative VP nominee, sans the New York accent and 'John Zaccaro problem,' while Jeff Bridges is one of Hollywood's idealized versions of Bill Clinton (see also Michael Douglas in 'The American President,' Martin Sheen in 'The West Wings,' etc., etc.).

Now, four years after the movie's release, what lingers is Gary Oldman's portrayal of Rep. Sheldon Runyon and the controversy that followed. As with any movie Oldman is in, he is - far and away - the best actor in every scene in which he appears. Remember, Oldman was born, grew up and continues to live in London, yet he pulled off this stellar portrayal of an American archetype as if he were steeped lifelong in the U.S. legislative political swamp. To put this into perspective, imagine Brad Pitt playing Tony Blair.

Where it gets interesting is after the shooting had stopped. Oldman claims there were scenes cut in which you see Runyon's really not an overall bad guy - he's more than one-dimensional, has nuances in his character, etc. Well, forget nuance: In the movie as released by writer/director Rob Lurie, Runyon comes across as if he's on a monomaniacal jihad to get Bridges' President. This is about as nuanced as a sledgehammer, frankly, given the battles Clinton was going through at the time with impeachment procedings. The intriguing question is how much say Dreamworks proprietors David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg (big Clinton and Gore supporters) had in the released product. I'm not sure if anything got proven either way (i.e., what Lurie planned and filmed vs. what got released), but it gives the movie a heck of a background and certainly enhances the re-viewing experience.

I do like the editorial comment made on thes pages about the DVD release - "It's interesting to note none of Oldman's work ends up in the dozen deleted scenes shown on the DVD." Yeah, very curious indeed and a shame. It would be a treat to see the deleted scenes with Oldman and be the judge of how his character may have been distorted in one way or another through injudicious exclusion.

There is, however, one scene that I really want to take Lurie to task for (on simple technical merits) - the confrontational scene between Oldman and Bridges takes place over a dinner, and Lurie and crew has the place miked up like the old U.S. Embassy in Moscow. I almost couldn't hear the dialogue between all the sounds of violent mastication and slurping. You could almost put that scene on 'Animal Planet' it was so over the top. Four years out, I can't tell you what the two characters said (not even the nature of the exchange), but I do remember being repulsed by the sound mix.