Load of rubbish!!

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

This movie was believable neither as a political satire, nor a political thriller. Some of Robin Williams' dialogue, which he possibly wrote himself, is funny; but like an overly-long SNL sketch, it had nowhere to go after the first few minutes because of the flimsy plot(s) and boring characters.The first premise of this movie is that Robin Williams is a comedian running for president. The only reason he gives for running is that an audience member suggested it, and that he doesn't like either of the main political parties; we are never given the impression that he cares about the outcome of the election. When the main character has basically nothing at stake, why do we as the audience care if he succeeds or fails? Worse still, the story breezes through every obstacle that makes it difficult in real life for an independent to run for president: the getting-on-the-ballot process is explained away in a one-sentence narration; his unrealistic inclusion in the candidates' debates is glossed over; and he attracts substantial support without any campaign spending because...? The movie then completely changes premises to become a "thriller". We find out that Robin Williams' election victory was due to a computer voting system glitch that misread the candidates' names. When whistleblowing voting system employee discovers the glitch, all of the stereotypical thriller devices come out to play: the evil multinational conglomerate cover-up (apparently computer companies have henchmen on retainer), the betrayal by the trusted confidant, the hideout discovery, the parking lot altercation, the car chase, etc., etc. Of course, the whole thing falls flat because I'm pretty sure that computer voting systems have more rigorous checks for coding errors than my grade 9 introduction-to-programming class.I guess the two parts of the movie are supposed to gel when the whistleblower is able to get to Robin Williams -- and only Robin Williams -- and tell him about the glitch. So he has to decide on whether to be the good guy and tell the world, or be the bad guy and be sworn in as president. That *might* have saved this movie if they had actually shown Williams struggling with this issue, but instead it is completely deflected: (1) because the evil multinational has apparently done such a good cover-up, his struggle becomes over whether to believe the whistleblower or not (and we get no explanation as to why he ends up believing her); (2) he doesn't really care about power, as he uses his president-elect status for jokes and publicity stunts. So it comes back to: why would we care if the main character doesn't?

I found this movie to be ... awkward. It wasn't bad. There are parts of it that are actually quite good. But it struck me as what you might call overly ambitious. There are basically two movies here. They're certainly connected; in fact in the context of this movie they're inseparable. But they're very different stories, and the combination of the two was - again - awkward.After what I thought was a pretty slow start with what was a rather lengthy narration style opening from Christopher Walken, playing Jack Menken, who was the manager for Tom Dobbs (Robin Williams), the movie started out really well. Dobbs is a political satirist, a la Jon Stewart. On his TV talk show he skewers politicians and rants against the system, and then suddenly and unexpectedly declares his candidacy for President of the United States. Starting out as a serious campaigner, he cuts loose as the political satirist he really is during a televised debate, his campaign catches fire and he gets elected, to everyone's surprise. This was working for me - and it was working really well. It wasn't outrageously funny, but it was a wonderful poke at the system, and I was seriously looking forward to seeing Dobbs poking the system from inside as he takes over the Oval Office.Then comes the awkwardness, as a completely unnecessary storyline gets introduced. The United States was trying out a new computer-based voting system. Now, I may not be an American but I'm familiar with the American electoral system. That's almost impossible. Each state runs its own version of the presidential election in its own way according to its own rules. To expect that every single state would sign on to this system is ridiculous. But that's the story. It then moves on to the fact that a computer glitch is what got Dobbs elected. You know what? I really wanted him as the legitimately elected President - a poke in the eye to the system from the voters. But he's not. The company that developed the computer voting system wants to cover the glitch up of course. So what if the glitch screwed democracy - it will hurt us in the pocketbook if people find out. But Eleanor (Laura Linney) - who works for the company - doesn't agree, wants to go public, and so the company sets out first to discredit her and then to eliminate her. So what started out as an enjoyable and light-hearted political satire becomes a political thriller about an electoral conspiracy. That could make for a good movie on its own, but to tie it in with the first part of the movie, where Dobbs gets elected in a huge upset was - I'll say it again - awkward. Both stories had a lot of potential. Because of the hybrid nature of the movie, neither story reached its full potential.To give credit where credit is due, though, Robin Williams was, I thought, superb in the role. He seemed credible, sincere and completely believable. I'm not always a big fan of Robin Williams; this movie was one of the best performances I've seen from him. Linney was good; Walken was probably underused. The movie's not bad. I just think it tried to do too much, and it would have been more fun and more interesting and maybe more thought-provoking if the whole political thriller angle had been dumped and we could have seen Dobbs actually and legitimately behind the desk in the Oval Office. (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.

I've been a Robin Williams fan since the Mork and Mindy days. I had always been disappointed when he attempted "serious acting" and had always felt that straight comedy was his only true calling. For instance, The Dead Poets Society did absolutely nothing for me.Williams' role and performance in Man of the Year is different. I really, really enjoyed the movie. Robin is both comedian and straight actor. For the first time I appreciate his serious acting. This is a totally intriguing movie. It grabbed me and held my attention from beginning to end.The other actors are no slouches either. I have never seen Christopher Walken in what I would regard as a poor performance, and Laura Linney is exceptional.The movie addresses subjects which are of universal interest: politics, conspiracy and the desirability of never taking one's self too seriously. It's an excellent movie and the best Robin Williams performance among the many gems that I've seen.