Man of the Year

By Jason Tozer

Man of the Year is a strange film in that it crosses many genres with elements of comedies, thrillers, romances and political satire.

With the popularity of his political opinion show at an all time high, comedian Tom Dobbs (Robin Williams) decides to run for US president, and a computer glitch in the electronic voting system sees him win.

Because of this, a computer programmer who discovered the glitch, Eleanor Green (Laura Linney), finds herself in the middle of a conspiracy by the computer company to hide the bogus election result while she tries to inform Dobbs of how he won.

Man of the Year is one of those films that is completely different to its trailer. Unlike other films that have misleading trailers, the studio probably had a difficult time deciding on which aspect to advertise.

Going in you'll expect a comedy based around a presidential election campaign and for a third of the film that is what you get. However, for the middle third we are dealt up a half-baked romance and to finish we are served a political conspiracy thriller.

With Robin Williams as your major drawcard, you can be forgiven for advertising the film as a comedy.

However, the expectations the trailer sets makes the film's twists and changes between genres confusing and annoying. This added to the bland performances of Williams and Linney makes for a rather dull unentertaining affair.

I really wonder what director Barry Levinson wanted to achieve with this film. There are tastes of Wag the Dog but the film's confusion sees it stumble between comedy and drama to the point it never gets off the ground.

Also Levinson should know how to get the most out of Williams by now since he has worked with him before on films like Good Morning, Vietnam and Toys, but Williams never gets out of first gear and gives only the bare minimum, even in comedic scenes.

This film had a lot of promise but its misleading advertising and trailers add to what is a thoroughly disappointing film in all respects.

Rating: 2 out of 5.

This review first appeared in the Queanbeyan Age