Read Mixed User Reviews for The Front Runner

4

LegendaryLassFeb 19, 2019

It starts off as a well-performed, interesting look at the campaign, then quickly (and visually) skips over much of the details of the campaign and practically smash cuts to the scandal.
From that point, the remaining hour of film isIt starts off as a well-performed, interesting look at the campaign, then quickly (and visually) skips over much of the details of the campaign and practically smash cuts to the scandal.
From that point, the remaining hour of film is essentially the same scene: people morosely staring into space, wondering if this is truly the state of the world they live in and someone else giving a response that amounts to "I just don't know." Over and over. Like a dozen times.
Reitman definitely seems to have a point of view regarding the press and role of political privacy and that seems to be "ummm... maybe?" Which is far from a satisfying movie experience. One thing that does come through is "Donna Rice paid an unfair price" but that is so briefly touched on and Rice plays so minor a part in this politician ruining her life that when you wake up from the rest of the film you'll have a sour taste in your mouth.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

TVJerryNov 28, 2018

This film harkens back to 1988, when an extramarital affair could ruin a politician. Hugh Jackman plays Senator Gary Hart, who was destined to become our next President, until his dalliance was exposed. The narrative touches on his personalThis film harkens back to 1988, when an extramarital affair could ruin a politician. Hugh Jackman plays Senator Gary Hart, who was destined to become our next President, until his dalliance was exposed. The narrative touches on his personal life, but much more time is spent examining the conflicts between media and politics. Jackman does just fine, but it feels like a political drama that desperately needs the clever wordplay of Aaron Sorkin or a more incisive examination than director Jason Reitman can conjure. As it stands, it makes an interesting history lesson (although "Chappaquiddick" did it better last year).… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

Brent_MarchantNov 30, 2018

An ambitious, well-intentioned effort about Gary Hart's failed 1988 presidential campaign that seeks to make several statements about larger issues -- the right to privacy, the tabloidization of the American media, the lack of reasonable andAn ambitious, well-intentioned effort about Gary Hart's failed 1988 presidential campaign that seeks to make several statements about larger issues -- the right to privacy, the tabloidization of the American media, the lack of reasonable and meaningful perspective in political analysis -- in addition to chronicling the Senator's self-sabotaged political run, one that many at the time pegged him as a shoo-in for chief executive. Unfortunately, in telling its story, the movie tends to become unfocused, not sure where to place its emphasis, resulting in a scattered effort that doesn't do its various narrative components justice. In spite of these issues, the picture does feature fine performances by Hugh Jackman as the conflicted politician and Vera Farmiga as his emotionally devastated wife. However, it's too bad this release doesn't live up to its hype -- or its potential -- given that, if handled more skillfully, it could have served as noteworthy social commentary that's just as relevant today as it was about the period in question.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

MattBrady99Mar 17, 2019

...hmm, not so much.

I'm losing faith in Jason Reitman as a director and wondering when is he gonna make a great movie again. Hugh Jackman dose his best as always, but needs good materiel to earn him any award recognition.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

JLuis_001Feb 18, 2019

Frankly Jason Reitman hasn't done a great film for a long time but I think this film is perhaps his most worthy effort in a while and it might sound weird that I'm saying that because Tully wasn't a disappointment for me but in the end IFrankly Jason Reitman hasn't done a great film for a long time but I think this film is perhaps his most worthy effort in a while and it might sound weird that I'm saying that because Tully wasn't a disappointment for me but in the end I wasn't really that happy with the results of that film and I must say - considering the results of this one - that those who are saving him are his actors. Because both in Tully and in this one. The main characters are the true engines of the stories.

The Front Runner offers a great interpretation by Hugh Jackman and sincerely I must say that he's the best reason to give an opportunity to this film.
I don't doubt that there are fans of the director or those who follow his work very closely but the truth is that I enjoyed this film more because of Jackman's work than for what his director managed to build.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

amheretojudgeJan 31, 2019

Hiding Under A Sophisticated Lie.

The Front Runner Reitman's fatal attempts on convincing us to believe the significance of a script can only make you more depressed. This political drama is neither political nor drama, there is very littleHiding Under A Sophisticated Lie.

The Front Runner

Reitman's fatal attempts on convincing us to believe the significance of a script can only make you more depressed. This political drama is neither political nor drama, there is very little for it be diplomatic and yet it is diplomatic to the core and frankly that is not how you are supposed to answer the questions raised by yourself; at least not on such larger scale. For what it's worth, the film is executed sharply, with swooping in as much as perspective there can be, but this almost two hour long episode-like film overstays its welcome.

There is barely an idea for it to walk around, and neither does it have any style to reason its way out, it is all textbook procedure boasting in front of a large crowd with none whatsoever flow or rhythm in its vocab. What's worse among all is the scrutiny that is hyped and overridden for the entire film and is yet just skimmed off on terms of its so called exploration. There is no hard figure or fact to prove their ideologies, it feels like a juvenile attempt to win over your heart with pity and few tears- it doesn't even have that. Running short on ideas, Reitman has dipped this film entirely into cliched outdated montages that bores you to death.

It leaps over these from time to time, distracting us from who knows what; a heated debate around a big round table, a controversial scandal, a press conference gone wrong, a stakeout van, a claimed guilty persona being cornered by flashy cameras and press reporters just yelling. You would know when there is no connection between you and a character, when the stakes aren't communicated thoroughly, the most dramatic antic that puts Jackman at his most vulnerable position feels dry and physically distant, the threat never conjures you to nod convincingly when Jackman fumbles or stutters.

Speaking of whom, the only survivor of this sinking ship is Jackman, he comes out good, real good. His performance is the reason why you might want to finish this venture no matter how long. All the public appearance of his whether it be his speech or his temper bursting out behind the alley, is performed majestically and is written with compelling arguments- which is not something to be surprised or excited for since this is what the genre demands.

The supporting cast feels like misused from Simmons to Farmiga, there is basically anything for them to do or invest. The structure of the film is arguably fresh and not definitively productive, since it is always absorbing when a film relies upon one and only one act, but that is only the case when there is an act to follow. This seems like a huge swing and a miss, what should have been a side track, is helmed at the center and the rest of it is scoffed off, maybe there was a lot to pursue, maybe there wasn't, either way, The Front Runner is certainly not going to be elected.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

Bertaut1Jan 27, 2019

Reasonably well-made but barely scratches the thematic surface

Based on Matt Bali's 2014 book, All the Truth Is Out: The Week Politics Went Tabloid, written for the screen by Bai, Jason Reitman, and Jay Carson, and directed by Reitman, TheReasonably well-made but barely scratches the thematic surface

Based on Matt Bali's 2014 book, All the Truth Is Out: The Week Politics Went Tabloid, written for the screen by Bai, Jason Reitman, and Jay Carson, and directed by Reitman, The Front Runner tells the story of democratic Colorado senator Gary Hart's (Hugh Jackman) doomed 1988 presidential campaign. His reputation was shattered when a Miami Herald story accused him of an affair, and only three weeks into his campaign, he withdrew. The film presents the events of those weeks as a turning-point; when political journalism and tabloid sensationalism irrevocably fused. However, it spreads itself far too thin, trying to take on the perspective too many characters, telling us very little about any of them, least of all Hart himself.

Although the film doesn't absolve Hart of being a terrible husband, it does present him as an inherently decent man trying to protect his privacy against a predatory media. Following the line of the book, Reitman posits that the reporter who broke the story, Tom Fiedler (Steve Zissis), did Hart himself, the American people, and political discourse in general a grave disservice insofar as tabloid reporting of this nature has gone on to undercut serious political debate, and has thus subverted the importance of the political process, cheapening it by way of cynicism, sensationalism, and sleaze.

Although ostensibly about the events of 1987, the film has one eye on the here and now, musing as to why a man who was merely accused of having an affair (an accusation that was never proved) had his career destroyed, and yet a man accused of sexual misconduct on multiple occasions, a man who is on tape bragging about how he can sexually assault women with impunity, could be elected to the highest office in the land. The answer suggested by the film is that, since Hart, scandal has become just another aspect of politics, and that which destroyed him in 1987 barely made a dent on Donald Trump in 2016.

However, although this should make for fascinating drama, The Front Runner doesn't really work. The most egregious problem is the depiction of Hart himself. For starters, it's questionable, at best, to portray him as the victim. In this post-#MeToo era, suggesting that a powerful man was wronged when his infidelity was exposed is more than a little naïve. Indeed, the film seems to yearn for simpler times, when potentially great men could walk the path to positions of power, unimpeded by intelligent women speaking out against them, or diligent reporters uncovering their less wholesome activities, when infidelity remained hidden from the public. The Front Runner is not a story about a man who learns that private ethical lapses have become intertwined with public policymaking. Instead, it's about a man who was unfairly destroyed by a pernicious press for doing exactly the same thing that his predecessors had gotten away with for decades. And that's a much less interesting film. Additionally, due to a poor script, Hart comes across as a blank slate, a cypher onto which the audience can project its own interpretation. Related to this, Reitman asks the audience to take Hart's potential for transformative greatness on trust, never attempting to illustrate any aspect of that potential.

Elsewhere, the film tries to touch on virtually every aspect of the scandal - reporter-editor meetings discussing the moral responsibility of the press; campaign staff trying to fight back against tabloidization; gumshoe reporters hiding in bushes and stalking back alleys; the strain on Hart's marriage; the effects on his alleged mistress, Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). Ultimately, it casts its net far too wide, briefly covering topics that are crying out for a more thorough engagement. For example, at one point, Rice says, "he's a man with power and opportunity, and that takes responsibility." That's a massive statement with serious potential for drama, but the film fails to do anything with it, moving on to cover something else. Indeed, Sara Paxton, despite being in only two scenes of note, gives a superb performance, finding in Rice a decency and intelligence. She's an infinitely more interesting figure than Hart himself.

Given how thematically relevant the Hart story is to the contemporary political climate in the US, especially the increasingly antagonistic relationship between the White House and the media, the script feels bland and overly simplistic. The core of the story is the question of whether or not the press was right to report on Hart's infidelity and the film answers with a resounding "no". However, the cumulative effect is of a scandal skimmed rather than explored, of characters glanced at rather than developed, of controversies summated rather than depicted.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

MasadaSep 22, 2019

Despite being a fan of Reitman's work (Up in the Air, Thank You for Smoking), this one didn't land home for me. I know why he wanted to make this movie, the link to the current president (Trump at this moment of writing in 2019) and whatDespite being a fan of Reitman's work (Up in the Air, Thank You for Smoking), this one didn't land home for me. I know why he wanted to make this movie, the link to the current president (Trump at this moment of writing in 2019) and what character he is as a leader. The one thing they have in common is that they may, or may not, have commited adultery and if that should be taken into account whether or not they are fit to command the oval office. The media prevented Hart from achieving this, but 30 years later Trump managed anyway, despite being a more nefarious character than Hart. It is a clear vision that in only a couple of decades, things can change dramatically.

I've established that I know what he wanted to do. But it did not land. It has a very strong performance by Jackman and Farmiga is passable. It just focusses and zooms in on the wrong things. The story feels like an uphill climb, but the sights up there are not worth the trouble of the journey. I don't feel like I got to know the man Gary Hart, or his family. I didn't feel how big the impact actually was on his campaign and family, the movie only showed it to me.

The only reason it got 6 points is of Jackman's performance, the line it tries to draw with current events and the fact that it was made with technology that was only available in the eighties. Besides that? Meh.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

geewahJan 5, 2021

Nothing great. Comes across at times as if it's just going through the motions despite Jackman's best efforts.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews