*

There's a reason some movies don't do well. Some movies are up against big blockbusters and simply get lost in the shuffle. Some movies have the misfortune of having a scandal attached to the project that turns people off. And some movies are just plain bad.


SWING VOTE didn't do well in the theatres this weekend not because it's a political "comedy" but because it's simply a craptastic movie. Actually, adding "tastic" might indicate that it was even spectacularly bad and that's not true... because SWING VOTE is so poorly done that it's not even REALLY bad.. just blandly mediocre.. and that's a crying shame.


I knew the movie was one I couldn't wait to avoid when I saw the trailer in the theatre. Looked too contrived but not ridiculous enough to be taken on as satire. I can only imagine in some board room in Los Angeles the idea sounded good: let's let the Presidential vote come down to one man and then see what would happen. If the filmmakers had really jumped with both feet into the premise and taken it to it's extremes, this would have had a chance at being funny. But, instead, they chose to give it 'heart' which means that things can't get too ridiculous because it has to remain "real" and yet how do you do that when you're talking about an implausible premise done so dully. Ironically the movie's 'heart' is all about fighting apathy but I watched the movie in shocked silence wondering how so many top notch actors (Costner, Grammar, Tucci - who I hope got paid a lot for the only principal to even remotely shine - and Nathan Lane - who comes off toothless when it was he I counted on for some real political jabs) got schnookered into appearing in such a dog. I think "apathy" (also known as a paycheck) was responsible.


The story revolves around a small town in New Mexico where Kevin Costner's main character "Bud" lives. In the era of product placement, I instantly thought of Budweiser and I was rewarded later on in the movie with cases of the beer brand strewn about Bud's bedroom as if to associate itself with the dullard who works as a cog in a egg factory, curses (but only in G rated ways) and drinks and falls down. Ha ha that's funny. Except that it's not. Why Hollywood is fascinated with losers especially middle aged ones, is beyond me. We're also supposed to, I think, think it's 'cute' that his 12 year old daughter (admirably played by newcomer Madeline Carroll) takes care of him, hauling him out of bed after passing out in a drunked stupor.


I'm not sure why I should find this cute although later on in the movie we find out that the mother abandoned Bud and their daughter due to a drug problem giving Mare Winningham a remarkable five minutes in what was the only moment of interest in this muddle mess. I guess the message is: sure Bud is a mess, but look, the kid could have ended up with her drug addled, delusional mother so in comparison, he's not so bad. OK. Whatever. Unfortunately there is an entire other movie embedded in that scene, one in an infinitely better movie. I wish I could have seen it.


Anyway, Carroll plays a girl, Molly, who is still idealistic about America and our right and priveledge to vote. She gives a good show and tell speech for her disinterested class (mirroring I suppose the audience) and rages throughout the rest of the movie trying to get Bud and others to get excited about voting and then later about the plight put forth by letter writers who have sent Bud buckets of snail mail (how quaint). She's passionate about her idealism in a world full of liars and thieves and ladder climbers. I feel sorry for the kid but can't help but think that this cynical movie where it turns out that even the Secret Service man assigned to protect Bud gets passionate about Molly's gosh gee whiz ideals. Why cynical? Because the very values that it espouses- getting involved and participating in the process - seem foreign to the very movie that's been made. Everything about the script is cheap and lazy. Bud is suddenly the 'swing voter' because of an eye rolling contrivance that includes Bud getting drunk, hitting his head on a sign and passing out, Molly voting instead of him at the exact moment a cleaning woman unplugging the voting machine, exact matching of electoral votes nationwide and so on. Because those same suits in that same board room sat around and said "how can we fix this story so that Bud is the crucial vote?" and then they spend a half hour telling us. And frankly it's just plain dull. It'd have been better to have shown the political candidates spin their campaigns of lies and then simply show it all coming down to Bud and do away with all the exposition. It does not do the characters any favors.


Naturally the candidates go to New Mexico to personally persuade Bud to vote for them and go to what should have been outlandish methods to secure that vote. Swipes at both parties ensue and neither of them are particularly funny - tired chiches abound - oh look the Republicans are rich and war obsessed and the Democrats are Cheeto eating dimwits and both parties would sell their souls to get their way. I guess in criticizing both parties the film can't be accused of bias but it certainly doesn't go far enough and not only is it not funny, it reaffirms the idea that politics is dull and for the morally bankrupt.


I have to say though that there is a little bit of a highlight.. the Democratic nominee played by Anthony Hopkins does a PSA convincing Bud that he's "Pro Life" and so therefore, Anti Abortion which, naturally is generally against what most Democrats believe. To drive his point home, Hopkins appears on a playground full of school children and as he discusses how abortion is bad, each child in turn explodes in a puff of smoke that is jarring and hilarius. If the rest of the movie had been half as good as that moment, this would be a different review.


The problem though with even this scene is that it assumes that you know that Hopkins is pro abortion simply because he's a Democrat and OF COURSE all Democrats are pro abortion... and there are assumptions made about Republicans. Again, without a proper set up about what each candidate believes in, the jokes are meaningless and flat. Not to mention lazy.


I spoke above about product placement and I have to write just a bit more... because I've rarely been as aware of the product placement as I was in SWING VOTE. There were Pepsi cans all throughout the movie and also at the end of the movie as the two Presidential nominees come together for a debate, the "final debate" logo looks exactly like said Pepsi can.


There are also the inclusion of real life political commentators which further blur the line (is there even a line anymore) between news and entertainment. Here would have been a great opportunity to skewer the tv pundits and it was wasted. They're just there to add verisimilitude and sell the movie (one imagines Bill Maher,Ariana Huffington or Mary Hart promoting the movie because of their cameos). Feh.


It's sad that in such a over saturated political climate, such a cynical time in our history that a movie that seeks to restore idealism simply comes across as a badly written commercial for products and news programs. Somewhere the character of Molly is shaking her head and realizing that the battle is lost at last. The vote has been counted and we, the audience that paid $12 to go see this dog, are the ones who have lost.