Man of the Year (2006)

Man of the Year is the cinematic equivalent of slapping an ice cream cone out of the hands of an exuberantly expectant child. (and no, I'm not just talking about my personal bias that there's a special circle of movie hell for any character who makes a previously happy Robin Williams sad. You try watching his puppy-dog face fall, taking on the weight of the world, and not wishing every form of hardship upon the character who incited it. Hmmpff.)The thing is, it's likely unsurprising to most prospective viewers that the film disappoints. Far too many asinine 'political comedies' flirting with satirical potential only to instead opt for toilet humour exist to not be wary. But no – Man of the Year commits a far worse cinematic crime than simply being a weak idea poorly executed: it offers a genuinely inspired premise for comedy and thoughtful political satire alike, and proceeds to deliver on it in a compelling manner. Then, halfway through, it throws it all away. Okay, so even at its (initial) best, the film is no masterpiece; its dogmatic political ideals are delivered in impassioned but cumbersome mini-monologues like an overzealous first year political science major yearning for participation marks. But the core ideas at play are sound and worthwhile. And, when exploring the cult of personality in contemporary politics and valid inclusion of humour, charisma, and stage presence in engaging the general populace in core political issues and enlivening the political sphere to incite voter turnout, who better to lend it wings than the legendary Robin Williams? Who better to polish somewhat clunky thematic exposition than Christopher Walken, Lewis Black, and Jeff Goldblum? Sure enough, for its first half, detailing the unorthodox journey of Tom Dobbs (Williams), comedian and political satirist, through whimsical campaign to becoming President Elect, the film…works. It's not perfect, but it is both funny and thought-provoking enough to become a worthwhile part of the cultural landscape, particularly in the context of America gearing up for another presidential election. Appropriately, the superstar cast all invest 110% in the material. Williams is note-perfect as the sharp but sincere comedian-turned-politician, and it goes without saying that the film's strongest moments are him being given the freedom to let loose with his patented exquisitely nimble standup, particularly during a hysterical send-up of the pomposity of political debates. However, Walken is almost as funny (high praise indeed) snarking away as his cantankerous manager throughout, while the criminally underused Goldblum literally talks the film to a standstill in a triumphantly greaseball monologue as the requisite "blood-sucking lawyer." By the midpoint, upon watching Williams triumphantly storm congress in a Thomas Jefferson outfit, it is genuinely fascinating speculating where the film will take him. Count me in. Ah – but by this point, we're no longer watching the same movie. Perhaps you missed that sneaky projectionist swapping reels before the changeover. Behold: we're now watching a grim conspiracy thriller starring Laura Linney, and her Sisyphean tribulations as she, on the run, endeavours to reveal a corporate cover-up of a computer glitch leading to inadvertent election fraud. There is lots of panting, crying, hand-wringing, and terse abduction attempts. Even the music takes on the urgent pulse of a Serious Thriller. And Robin. Gets. Sad. Don't get me wrong: this subplot is, in many ways, just as valid a movie as the initial spry Robin Williams satire we started out with. Linney plays tense and harried like the best of them, and, once again, the premise is inherently topical enough to already stand out as an above-average political drama worth watching. Sure, the surprisingly graphic scene of Linney being assaulted in her home and forcibly drugged to discredit her and her accusations at work is a bit much, but hey – the audience needs to know that the Stakes Are High in this Serious Political Thriller. I'd watch that movie.But not here. For this is not the movie I sat down to watch. Moreover, it is not even the movie the creative team involved in Man of the Year set out to make. And watching it steadily take over the very promising movie it began as, like a cancer, and thereby muddying the crucial impact of either core idea, is too infuriating to bear. As Dobbs frets through antics (the CIA bemusedly supervising the President Elect playing paintball is too much disbelief to suspend even for a satire) and bureaucracy alike, naively investing an unfeasible amount of trust in the veracity of Linney's claims that his presidency is invalid, the movie burns through any remaining reservoirs of verisimilitude or patience alike, let alone pretenses at humour. By the end, I was too occupied playing 'spot the stretcher' (seriously – there are no fewer than three sequences of beloved celebrities taken away on stretchers by the film's climax, in case there were any doubt of how needlessly morbid the film has become) to stop myself from repeatedly bashing my head into the nearest hard surface in frustration to pay much heed to the film's lazy, saccharine attempts to wind up its smörgåsbord of needless complications and subplots. I'm sure not even Walken could cook up a snide analogy strong enough to properly express my disdain here.Many will point to writer/director Barry Levinson's sly political satire Wag the Dog as credentials for this project. I, instead, will point to Levinson's last project before Man of the Year – Envy, one of the most loathsome excuses for comedy I have ever had the displeasure of watching – as more indicative of his mindset here. Man of the Year is too replete with frustratingly intelligent or funny bits (and worth it for Williams and Walken alone) to be a total write-off. But if there were ever a film benefiting from the potential to pause and fast- forward, this is it. -5/10

I love Robin Williams and would be disposed to look favourably upon any film he stars in - especially if it's a comedy. And the president slash comedian role in "Man of the Year" seemed to fit him perfectly.What I struggled with in this film - badly - is the credibility of the story at numerous junctures:a software to simply count votes - how hard that can be? I can believe in viruses, in some evil mastermind trying to rig the voting, but in the simplest programme getting it wrong?! - blah.a man in his 50s meets a woman once, they hardly exchange a word, but he is utterly smitten with her and gives her his private mobile number, calls her ex employer and would jump at meeting her the moment she calls. And he has just become the most powerful man on the planet. Love conquers all in the Hollywood model, but even so... really?!the presidential candidate and then the president elect has a mobile phone which he answers at all times, even in the Oval Office while formally in a formal meeting with the outgoing president?! An assistant might provide some much needed help - he should consider it.the president elect has to choose 14,000 new employees, and he goes paintballing with his entire campaign staff?! - and so on.A good film might have one idea which is far-fetched, but then everything falls into place (we don't really believe an extra-terrestrial will end up in a small boy's wardrobe, but after that, all the other elements, the continuation and the human story behind click into place seamlessly, so we can ignore the initial lack of plot credibility). This film just piles incredible on implausible, it didn't do it for me.

For as long as I can remember, American politics has been marked by two phenomena; popular discontent with the country's two-party system and popular reluctance to change that system by voting for third parties. Admittedly, the cause of that discontent appears to have changed over the years; during my youth in the Ford/Carter era of the seventies the main complaint seems to have been that both Republicans and Democrats were essentially right-of-centre and only disagreed on peripheral issues, thus disenfranchising left-wing voters. Today the complaint seems to be that the Republicans are too far to the right and the Democrats too far to the left, thus disenfranchising centrist voters."Man of the Year" is a film which addresses this discontent; it seems to have been inspired by two recent American political events, Ross Perot's bid for the Presidency in 1992, the most successful third-party candidacy since Theodore Roosevelt, and the controversial Florida result of the 2000 presidential election. The main character is comedian Tom Dobbs, the host of a satirical talk show on American television, who decides to run for President and announces his candidacy on the air. Although he gets on the ballot in only 13 states, he wins them all and thus finds himself- to the immense surprise of everyone, himself included- elected the first U.S. President since Millard Fillmore to be affiliated to neither the Republicans nor the Democrats.Unfortunately, there is one person who knows that Dobbs was not the real winner of the election. She is Eleanor Green, an employee of the powerful Delacroy Corporation, the company which manufactured the computerised voting machines used in the elections. She realises that Dobbs was only declared the winner because of an error in the computer software, and tries to contact him to let him know that he has been elected under false pretences. There is, however, one person who will do anything to prevent the truth coming out, Delacroy's Chief Executive James Hemmings who realises that the truth would destroy his company.The film is essentially a comedy incorporating elements of a traditional thriller plot, the one about the hero/heroine risking his/her life in order to expose wrongdoing by a big corporation. (This was, for example, the plot of "Silkwood"). The comic elements are by far the more successful; the scenes involving Eleanor are not particularly comic, nor particularly thrilling. Dobbs is played by Robin Williams, who started his career as a stand-up comedian in real life, and this is a role tailor-made for him, suiting his style of fast-talking comedy. Dobbs gets his point across in a series of speeches which more closely resemble comedy routines, especially during the very funny scene of the debate with the other two Presidential candidates. Williams combines wit and humour with some genuinely serious political analysis, attacking the two established parties for corruption, for being overly beholden to lobbyists and special-interest groups and for ignoring the interests of ordinary voters.The film was directed by Barry Levinson who had earlier directed Williams in one of his best films, "Good Morning Vietnam!", in which he also made good use of his comedic talents. Levinson has also made another satire on the American political system, "Wag the Dog". Neither that film nor "Man of the Year" is, in my view, wholly successful, although the reasons in each case are slightly different. "Wag the Dog" has at its centre a brilliant satirical concept, the idea of a President and his spin doctors concocting a fictitious war in the Balkans in order to deflect public attention from a sex scandal, but neither the scriptwriters nor the actors (except perhaps Dustin Hoffman) really get the maximum mileage from this idea."Man of the Year", by contrast, has at its centre a single great performance, but the satire never seems to be going anywhere. The film criticises the Republican and Democratic parties, but the fact that Dobbs is defeated by both his rivals would suggest that the majority of the American people are happy with the two-party system and would rather have a serious politician than a comedian in the White House. (Although they have managed to elect a few jokers in the past). The idea that a candidate could be elected President by computer error does not really tell us anything serious about the American political system and is too implausible to tell us anything meaningful about the dangers of technology, although some technophobes may try and derive some such message from it. Robin Williams is brilliant, but he receives little support from either the script or the rest of the cast. 7/10

I generally like the work of director Barry Levinson,and I have some of his movies among my favourite ones (Diner,Good Morning Vietnam and Wag the Dog).However,I started to loose a little bit of faith on him with his most recent films.Bandits had been very mediocre and Envy had been an unbearable piece of crap,not to mention I could not believe Levinson was involved on it.He needed to do something really good to redeem himself after such film excrement.And although Man of the Year resulted to be enormously superior to Envy (which means practically nothing),it resulted to be a mediocre film.The main fails from this movie are on the screenplay.It is not bad,but for some reason it did not leave me very satisfied.I think it should have been more incisive and sarcastic,and not so bland.Some humor moments fail because they were not well written.However,there are good elements on this movie which make it moderately entertaining.The best thing from the screenplay is the proper commentaries it makes on the world of politics.Besides,there are some good moments of humor and Robin Williams fits well on his character.For that positive elements,I can give a slight recommendation to Man of the Year,although the final experience is mediocre.I hope Levinson has lifted the aim on What Just Happened,his most recent movie.