Yes, there was a bias in this movie, and as a disclaimer, I'll say first of all that it's a bias I agree with. How could there not be a bias? I'd be surprised if any of the main actors involved were Republicans, given what I know about them.That said, this is a fair film in that it portrays participants in both campaigns sympathetically. Granted, it's anti-Bush, but the filmmakers clearly allowed for the fact that many Bush-supporters were sincere and GOOD people who believed in the justice of what they were doing. I don't doubt that many Bush campaign-workers felt what <more> Bob Balaban's character said, that the Gore campaign was trying to cheat Bush out of a clear early victory. If I'd worked on Bush's campaign, I'd probably have felt the same way, so kudos to the filmmakers for what I think was a humane, honest portrayal of everyone involved. Tom Wilkinson is GREAT as James Baker, even if it seemed a little hard for this Brit to do a credible Texas twang. Wow. What an actor. The filmmakers could have resorted to satirical caricature of the Republicans. I was pleased to see they did this with only one person: Katherine Harris. And, frankly, she deserved it.To all reviewers offended by the portrayal of Katherine Harris: Consider that this woman knowingly sought the disenfranchisement of 20,000 legal voters. Anyone willing to resort to anything this low is worse than a "bimbo" see mark-4401's review . It's almost kinder to have portrayed her as a suggestible idiot. Otherwise, we would have had to assume she was a complete ogre for doing what she did.To Frank from New Jersey who said Bush won in the end, it's been 8 years, and we need to "let it go" : Spare me. I knew there would be people like you towing that tired line. There's a good reason they're making this movie 8 years later: You also said that the election was about two "good men" fighting for the presidency "tooth and nail": Can you really look at what Bush has done since 2000 and say he's a "good man"? 70% of people in this country can see now that he was the wrong guy for the job. The reason they're making this movie now is clearly a commentary on the maddening fact that this verbally challenged, corrupt, middle-aged frat boy, who may have done more damage to this country than any president in our history, didn't even get into office cleanly. Let it go? Thanks, but I don't think so.One of the best scenes yes, I know it was biased was the one where Pastor Whiting, one of the voters wrongfully turned away from the polls, was watching Bush's victory speech on TV. This scene summed it up for me: The voters who never got to vote were the real victims in this f-d up election, THEY were the ones cheated, no matter how you feel about George W Bush, Al Gore, or anyone portrayed in this movie.Thanks to Aragorn-7 from LA for being open-minded. I agree with you, this movie didn't portray one party as good and the other as evil, it portrayed them as both believing they had the "moral high ground." Spot on. This movie was interested in CHARACTERS, not good and bad guys. Which is how all political movies, not to say all movies, should be. No one can claim this movie was self-righteously angry, even if it had a clear bias.PS – To pamba19 from Georgia: Maybe if you'd kept watching, you'd have found out the movie dealt with the question you raised about military ballots. The spin on this issue was the Republicans', not the Democrats'. The movie portrayed the irony of this event very compellingly it was one of my favorite parts , and, even though it's corny, I loved the line, "I think Joe Lieberman just entered the 2004 primary." One more reason for me to dislike Lieberman… They really used this part of the movie to slam Lieberman, not Republicans. Kudos to the filmmakers for that, too.And thanks to everyone except pamba19 for actually watching the movie before they wrote their reviews. <less> |