Movie review savages "Man of the Year" for failure to "raise hackles"

[DeepModem Mom]

Disappointing, if true.

NYT: Joke the Vote: A Comedian for President
By A.O. SCOTT
Published: October 13, 2006


Ava Gerlitz/Universal Pictures
Robin Williams on the campaign trail in “Man of the Year.”

In a pre-election season full of drama, contention and surprise, “Man of the Year” arrives on the scene with the blistering impact of a spoonful of cold mashed potatoes....The status quo is usually safe from whatever arrows the movies aim in its direction, and it is hard to think of a movie less likely to incite discomfort than “Man of the Year.”

This is a shame since (director/writer Barry)Levinson was responsible for “Wag the Dog,” a gratifyingly sharp and imaginative dissection of the media spectacle that often confuses itself with political reality....“Man of the Year” wants to plant itself in the noise and fury of the present, but without raising any hackles. Its hero, Tom Dobbs (Robin Williams), is a comedian who is the host of a popular television talk show. His name is frequently mentioned in the same breath as real-life models like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart....Tom is meant to be honest and fearless, offering a welcome antidote to the usual timid, hypocritical candidate-speak. He serves up some pretty shocking stuff, boldly coming out in favor of environmental protection and improved education, while pointing out that politics is dominated by “special interests,” that Americans are sick of bitter partisanship, and that you can’t tell the two major parties apart anyway.

It would be impolitic of me to point out that, actually, you can. But Hollywood may be the last place in America where the dream of a nonideological consensus survives, if only in the form of commercial anxiety about alienating potential ticket buyers. And it is true that neither Republicans nor Democrats will find much to take offense at in “Man of the Year,” though for precisely that reason neither group will find much to respond to either. Unlike the television satirists whose cachet he tries to bogart, Tom is careful never to address the actual issues that provide the content and context of contemporary political argument.

Instead the movie is all about process: about the machinery of celebrity and also about voting machines. As Tom makes his improbable, impetuous way down the presidential campaign trail (facing a bland Democratic incumbent and an equally generic Republican challenger), a second plot unfolds at a company called Delacroy, which has a lucrative franchise in computerized voting systems.

Eleanor Green (Laura Linney), a Delacroy employee, attempts to alert her bosses to a glitch in the software, and for her pains is stalked, defamed, harassed and lectured by Jeff Goldblum, who plays the company’s slimy chief lawyer. (Not that the flaw is the result of anything as provocative as a political conspiracy. Just technical difficulties.)...

(“Man of the Year” is rated PG-13 -- Parents strongly cautioned. IT'S A WHOLE LOT CLEANER THAN ANYTHING YOU HEAR FROM THE REAL WORLD OF POLITICS THESE DAYS.)

http://movies2.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/movies/13man.html

[NYCGirl]

1. Seems to be true. The consensus is that the film is toothless, unfocused

and disappointing. As of this writing, out of 51 reviews, it only got 8 good ones.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/man_of_the_year/

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Thanks for the link, NYCGirl! nt

[Karenca]

9. I read all the lousy reviews----I'm still going to see it tomorrow night.

After all, didn't "The English Patient'" win for best film one year?

I used to follow reviews more---that's really changed for me after
"Crash" won over 'Brokeback Mountain'
and Reese Witherspoon won over Felicity Huffman.

[NYCGirl]

11. But the reviews have nothing whatsoever to do with the Oscars.

:shrug:

Hope you enjoy it.

[Karenca]

13. I know that.

I haven't had coffee yet.

[Junkdrawer]

7. You've decided for me. I'm going tonight. n/t

[Karenca]

10. And I'm seeing it tomorrow. n/t

[Karenca]

2. Somewhat better review from the Washington Post:

Man of the Year
THE FAMILY FILMGOER ® by Jane Horwitz

Writer/director Barry Levinson's Man of the Year seems best geared to adult audiences with a rueful sense of how the electoral process has gone awry. Even so, high-schoolers receptive to political satire and the all-over-the-place wit of Robin Williams may find yucks and smarts in this spoof about a comedian who stuns everyone and becomes a successful presidential candidate. For a little more than half its length, Man of the Year is funny, acerbic and right on the money (also a bit too lewd for middle-schoolers). Then it begins pulling its satiric punches and going mainstream, with a lame, thriller-style climax and a finale that could flatten champagne. All the fun that came earlier is nearly spoiled, but not quite. Williams and his supporting cast are just too much fun to watch. The movie contains lewd, if not technically explicit, sexual slang and innuendo, midrange profanity, drug references, toilet humor, smoking and drinking.

Tom Dobbs (Williams), a successful TV comic in the mold of Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, is known for his political humor. An Internet-fueled groundswell gets him on the ballot as an independent into the presidential race. He tries to be dignified at first, but cuts loose at the debate and on Election Day somehow bridges the chasm between red and blue states. Terrific Laura Linney, as a shy computer geek from the company that made the electronic voting machines, brings Tom critical news. Lewis Black as his head comedy writer and Christopher Walken as his chain-smoking, bad-analogy-spouting manager are both priceless.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Editing to add I just read some of the reviews at " Rotten". Not good at all.

[DeepModem Mom]

5. Thanks for adding this from the WP, Karenca! nt

[rox63]

3. It's a friggin' Robin Williams comedy

It's not supposed to be a work of art.

[DeepModem Mom]

6. I think some of us thought it really took on the electronic voting...

machine issue. I saw Barry Levinson on "Hardball" yesterday say that was the reason he made the film.

[NYCGirl]

8. Too bad Barry Levinson couldn't have made this another "Wag the Dog." NT

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. No, it's supposed to be funny.

But apparently it's not that, either.

[fishwax]

22. well, there are a lot of reaction shots of people laughing

so it must be funny, right? Or why would the people be laughing? :sarcasm::(:cry:

[Demit]

12. Best line in Scott's review, in response to the one of the movie's themes

(that you can’t tell the two major parties apart): "It would be impolitic of me to point out that, actually, you can."

So it sounds like the movie pulls its punches in order to—in a wild guess—not offend?

[DeepModem Mom]

14. Thanks to Scott for that line -- in a movie review! nt

[Horse with no Name]

16. I'm sure there are many folks and factions out there

That want to discourage people from seeing this film.
They would downplay it so that people that aren't aware of the problems with voting remain just that.
I expected to see bad reviews.
Just shows you which reviewers are progressive and which are Bushbots.
I don't believe any of it.

[Junkdrawer]

17. Bingo. n/t

[Karenca]

18. I agree. nt

[fishwax]

23. so are you saying that those who didn't like it aren't progressive?

:shrug:

[faithnotgreed]

27. I would not put AO Scott in a category

if you are including him in your response
he was also the guest reviewer on ebert & roeper and he came across as someone who wanted a much more political film- one that called out politicians or situations and didnt blur the lines between the parties (much as he stated in his written review)

i would definitely support the film just because of the topic but if it is watered down to appeal to everyone then i would also be disappointed because the potential was so much more and i think that is what AO Scott at least is saying

[Karenca]

28. I saw it-----it was watered down----it ended up being a love story

and not a very good one.

[Peace Patriot]

19. Sounds like the movie message is that electronic voting can elect a good

good guy (an honest, no bullshit politician) inadvertently--conveying a positive message about electronic voting--the opposite of what has happened in reality, that electronic voting corporations with close ties to the Bush Junta deliberately used their TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, in an electronic voting system engineered by the biggest crooks in the Anthrax Congress, Tom Delay and Bob Ney (abetted by corporatist 'Democrats' like Christopher Dodd and Terry McAuliffe), to re-install the worst president in our history--a man guilty of genocide, torture, and ripping up the Constitution--and a Congress full of Bushite "pod people" to rubber-stamp his every fascist whim.

This is not a laughing matter. Over half a million innocent Iraqis are dead (according to the recent British report), and upwards of 3,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed (according to Donald Rumsfeld). The rule of laws not men is a thing of the past in the U.S.A. Our treasury has been looted. Our democracy has been savaged. And to make light jokes about these matters, that do not attack the perpetrators of these crimes--including their election fraud crimes--serves the interests of the criminals.

Robin Williams COULD play Bush. He has that slimy, maudlin, insincere, off-hand ambience that Bush exudes. If Williams were honest with himself--and not a pampered, rich, establishment entertainer--he could have done a good job of revealing just what electronic voting has brought us, and given us some needed relief with humor that is dead on. He and the filmmakers apparently decided to smear everything over with his typically off-point humor combined with his typical appeal to his audience for sympathy that he has not earned. Full disclosure: I don't like Robin Williams and would never pay money to see a film of his. But I think I can smell a war profiteering corporate news monopoly message when it stinks up the "news and entertainment" airwaves.

Could it do SOME good, as to the dire condition of our nation? Maybe. The suggestion that electronic voting could elect someone by "accident" might get some people to thinking about private corporations "counting" all our votes with TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, who might then look into the matter, and find out how bad it is. Maybe that's what the filmmakers had in mind--a mild suggestion that would get people thinking. I think they're dead wrong. We are long past the need for mild suggestions. And placing it in a comedy that says there is no difference between, say, John Kerry and George Bush, would serve to counter what may have been a well-intended message with the message that we might as well let corporations count all our votes with secret code, in extremely insecure and insider hackable voting machines, because, what difference does it make? It's all joke. And, hey, it might come out good in the end!

I think the notion that this film IS trying to convey a helpful, if mildly stated, message (as one of the filmmakers avers--reported in a comment above), is probably just public relations. They know which way the wind is blowing, and are trying to hook a leftist (majorityist, thinking) audience.

Again, there COULD have been good arguments here--and hard-hitting humor--say, about the Democrats who gave away Congressional war powers to George Bush, who were SILENT about riggable Bushite-controlled voting machines, and who represent corporate interests and not those of their constituents. It doesn't sound like the filmmakers and Williams have that kind of rigor of mind, though (--and I certainly wouldn't expect it of Williams). They toss off the "no difference" line--as a cliche, a given--and imply that, somehow, electronic voting rescues us from this lack of political choices by accidentally (s)electing a man who thinks for himself.

Well, see it, or don't see it, depending on whether you like Robin Williams or not. I suppose it's always good to know how corporate-controlled popular entertainment is handling a subject. I try to keep up with that, but it won't get ME to a Robin Williams movie, because I just don't like this actor and couldn't sit through it. I am open to reports on whether I've correctly analyzed the political content on the basis of reviews and my general understanding of Robin Williams' humor from past experience. "Man of the Year" is a fuzzy-brained, light treatment of the descent of the U.S. into fascism, which treats the mechanism of that descent--our loss of our right to vote--as a half-assed joke, is my conclusion. 'Don't worry, be happy' and maybe the Wheel of Fortune will accidentally (s)elect an honest president.

[Karenca]

20. It was quite awful. eom

[texasleo]

21. it tried to appeal to a broader audience..fail

they should have made it "indie."

[robcon]

24. I don't care if the movie raises hackles (warning: plot giveaway)

A movie can be entertaining without being serious politically. This movie was not serious or believable... for example, the candidate was in favor of the 'environment' and against 'lobbyists' but he had no real positions.

The real problem was that the movie wasn't entertaining. Williams was funny in his speeches, and that was it for entertainment. Acting (except maybe for Laura Linney) was atrocious, and it was hard to care for anyone in the movie. The storyline, that there was a computer glitch, and the alphabetical ranking decided the winner, was incredible - a guy won 17 states, even though the polls didn't suggest he would win any, and NO ONE SAID ANYTHING!!!! Ridiculous, insultingly stupid storyline.

[boobooday]

25. That is disappointing. eom

[redherring]

26. Bill O' Reilly has talked about this movie positively, so I would

say that it doesn't raise any hackles for sure.

[hsher]

29. Not interested in this movie, and won't see it

The last thing we need is Barry Levinson bluntly Photoshopping his ill-fitting wet dream, Robin Williams, onto young America's actual dream of Jon Stewart becoming president. I'd rather see Jon Stewart actually become president than a wan, pasty, weak "Hollywood take" on it happening, instead. Robin was funny in "Death To Smoochy", but he's about as credible a cinematic Stewart as Daniel Craig will prove credible as 007. Phenomenally bad, lazy, self-indulgent casting. If you wanted to send Jon Stewart a hint, you should have cast Jon Cryer or Bill Maher in the role, and developed a better, more acerbic screenplay.

Those is just my thots.


www.yourmorningleibowitz.blogspot.com

[Imagevision]

30. It raised the problems with eletronic voting, beats a blank...

[Lisa]

31. yes -- at the very least ...

(spoilers)















































The company appeared deceptive and downright incompetent (going so far as to frame Linney's character for sabotage, and then indulging in a clumsy murder attempt). If the main aim was to cast doubt on Diebold-type technology, and the present campaign finance situation -- and give Lewis Black's character to put in a few jabs about how certain TV stations (which shall remain FOX News?) are able to manipulate people's view of reality ... mission (somewhat) accomplished.

So the filmmakers didn't go out of their way to depict the voting-machine corporation as being in cahoots with one or the other parties. Given the plotline -- Dobbs winning -- they would have to be PRETTY POOR at fixing the election. If the film accused the fictional Democratic incumbent who really did win, of fixing the vote ... that would contradict all of what Palast and RFK have been documenting so far!

I suppose a movie could have been written which depicted Dobbs as a) a scheming evil genius (and we know Williams can play bad guys so he would have been up to it); or b), a gullible tool of the real plotters (Christopher Walken's character as more Rove-like?). The b) option would actually be quite a cool satire, but an entirely different film.

I was reminded a great deal of the early-90s film "Dave", which also has the "president" giving way to someone who is both more qualified and legally-elected. One wonders what Dobbs might have done if the "real" winner was stupid, mean-spirited, and immature. Green (Linney's character), an admitted non-voter, seems to be wrestling with whether her liking for an "ordinary" guy (and possible belief that he might do an okay job after all) ought to trump whether he really did win the election. (This probably isn't so different from what some of Bush's supporters thought about him, especially in 2000.)