Okay this is a TV movie, and there is a reason director John Badlam isn't a household name. There are many pot shots that could be taken about the script, the editing and the some choices from the director. Personally with in that context I thought the acting was quite good. But the point of the movie everybody tends over look: We have mixed entertainment with our politics to a degree it is at times impossible to figure out where one starts and other begins. The movie asks is this blending of that line harming our democracy? And while the point and even the story could have been better told, the point shouldn't be over looked due the movies technical limitations.
Add a Review
-
tringwood17 November 2002
-
The basic premise of four journalists discarding the rules of a presidential debate to instead "attack" one of the candidates is not far-fetched, but raises the question, "Could something like this happen?" Despite the rhetoric that journalists "have a responsibility" and it's the "voters who will decide" the election, the fact remains that media drives public opinion. James Garner does an excellent job as an aging journalist who truly believes what he does is right. I wish that the conservative journalist's private life storyline had either been developed or left out; the teaser was annoying and useless. The ending is surprising, not for what it is, but that it was allowed to happen. Regardless your political inclinations or your attitude about the media, this movie is worth watching.
-
Jac-157 November 2000"Behind the scenes" look at a presidential debate where the moderator and panelists decide to abandon the debate format and instead level accusations of wife/child/employee abuse at the Republican candidate.
The whole premise is pretty stupid, and no real candidate, nor the networks, would have allowed any of this to happen. The rest of the story involves a reporter trying to uncover the mystery of where the information came from and why they did it.
Poorly directed, and unnecessary sidebars including the conservative panelist who is in the closet, but other than showing a male-male kiss, this is never developed, and is rather pointless.
James Garner is solid as usual, but no one else is able to make their character anything but one-dimensional. -
drew-12115 December 2003When watching films set around the world of US politics, us Britishers are sometimes a little non plussed by the way the system works there. Films like this make me realise that politics and the media are made for each other and the relationship that has grown up around these two massive institutions has become so powerful as to make each organisation totally reliant upon the other - it is symbiotic if not parasitic.
Congratulations to the makers of this film, they point out, as did the original book, the dangers that lie ahead. Satire is a great tool and is not used enough in US movies, Michael Moore is doing his bit I suppose, but generally we are fed a bland diet. Thanks for this touch of spice.
James Garner, superb and restrained in his acting. John Badham, didn't try to 'Hollywood' the movie. And for those who didnt like it, well you are probably part of the problem. -
BrianLindgren21 January 2007I wouldn't say this is an excellent movie, but it is certainly very good. For fans of presidential races it is worth watching, if nothing else to show how the media can frame debates and influence public perception. The jockeying for position among the different anchors as for their roles on the debate panel, the hidden agendas they seem to have, and ultimately the quest for ratings gold all make this a very feasible story. Some of the details are a bit exaggerated, but the underlying theme is feasible. It also raises some concerns with the rise of 24/7 cable "news" networks that claim to be unbiased but harbor their own political agendas. It makes one wonder if there can ever be such a thing as impartial reporting on a presidential debate.
-
tom_jeffords27 August 2004WARNING CONTAINS SPOILERS!!! The Last Debate did indeed miss the point but it is not the point that some of the previous posters have spoken about. In typical Hollywood liberal fashion the bad guy in the movie was a conservative/republican who allegedly abuses women and children. The good guys are the liberal journalists (the supposed conservative journalist is actually a closeted gay). The allegedly impartial journalists take upon themselves to launch a surprise attack on the bad guy in a live presidential debate. Afterword the journalists launch into some phony soul-searching about whether they did the right thing. The point to me, which was gutlessly avoided during the movie was WOULD THEY HAVE DONE IT IF THE BAD GUY HAD A BEEN A LIBERAL?
-
dogcow10 November 2001This film is a rather interesting, albeit unrealsitic look at the power of the media in politics. James Garner gives a fantastic performance. The story keeps you interested as to the characters motivations. While its nothing earth shattering its a decent cable political drama.