Lack of good storyline.

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

I love good political movies. And I can see what they're trying to do with 'True Colors.' It's definitely ambitious, I'll give you that. But ultimately, I felt like this film just couldn't pull it off.The writing and dialogue were incredibly contrived. I mean, some of Ibsen's dialogue feels more natural than this. Also, every scene was a distracting and incredibly bizarre set piece, which they pretended to include in some casual, off-hand way, as if to suggest what rich and powerful people do with their free time: from a skiing holiday, to schmoozing with politicos at Super Bowl XXIII in Miami, to sport fishing off the back of a yacht. It felt like they were just plucking ideas from old episodes of that ridiculous show 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.' I'm surprised they didn't throw in a scene with characters chatting while on an African big-game safari in Tanzania.Even though I love both actors, at their young ages in these roles Cusack and Spader were playing above their weight class. They looked more like little boys playing dress-up and pretending to be adults.Imogen Coot or Stubble or Stubbly or Whatever was *horrible*. Her 'American' accent was literally all over the place, to the point that they had to add a line about boarding school in England to try to excuse it. Her 'acting' was atrocious.The only thing that kept me mildly intrigued were the oodles of homoerotic overtones (whether intentional or not) that seemed to pop up in so many scenes between Cusack and Spader. The writers apparently didn't know how to show us that these guys were really close friends, and they ended up writing scenes that just look incredibly embarrassing today. (Unless they included the whole secret gay subtext on purpose.)Someone on the message boards jokingly labeled this movie 'Brokeback Capitol!' (Hahahaha!) -- I *wish*. Just take Imogen Idiot out of the middle of it, and let our two young heroes struggle with their secret love affair vs. their conflicting political ambitions. *That* actually would have been a better movie.Finally, it's a little sad that this was the final role of the great Richard Widmark. At least we know that when he got to yell at young James Spader for being such a cocky little sunnabitch, he probably didn't have to work too hard at it.

This is one of the finest political movies ever done. And if he doesn't decide to return to the screen post his 90th birthday, it is a fitting swan song to the career of Richard Widmark.James Spader's Tim Gerrity and John Cusack's Peter Burton meet on the first day of law school and get assigned to be roommates. The film follows the career paths each take, the same woman they both are involved with and the values each takes from his background and develops along the way.Spader is the idealistic upper middle class kid who is born to a tradition of public service and attracted by the idealism of it. He's good in his part, but it's John Cusack's portrayal that really drives this film.Driven is the word for it, that is exactly what Peter Burton is. He's from a lower middle class background and he's desperate to escape. In fact, he's invented a background for himself that's phony and the scene where that is revealed is one of the movie's high points. I will not say any more.I've known a few Peter Burtons in my time too. Desperate to succeed at any price, willing to sacrifice friends and family to do it. It's what makes John Cusack's performance so real for me. I think it is the finest thing he's ever done on film.Richard Widmark plays United States Senator Joseph Stiles, a Yankee blue blood type to the manor born. Harry Carey, Jr., in his memoir, In the Company of Heroes described Widmark as one of the smartest and most literate men he's ever encountered, a man able to talk intelligently on a variety of subjects. Because of that, I have to believe that this role must have been a personal favorite.The best scene in the movie is when Cusack, who Widmark has made a protégé of, essentially blackmails Widmark into supporting Cusack for an open Congressional seat. Widmark is a politician and one who has he himself describes can play hardball if needed. But he's also there to try and do some good. He has to give into the blackmail for reasons I won't go into, but he does rip open the character of Cusack in some unforgettable dialog.I would also commend to other actors in this. Mandy Patinkin who plays an unscrupulous businessman/racketeer with an understated malevolence and Paul Guilfoyle who is Widmark's chief of staff, who has Cusack's number, but is unable to do anything about it.I'm surprised that no Oscar nods came with this film, especially for Widmark as a supporting actor. I couldn't give this film a higher recommendation.

How do politicians become so corrupt? This film explores one pathway: ambitious young man willing to bend the law, take opportunities (or make them) as they come, sacrifice friendship, invent the facts to suit the occasion etc.This time, however, we have the pleasure of seeing some accountability - too bad it doesn't happen more often.Well acted, well directed. I gave it 8.

John Cusack is one of my favorite actors of all time, and James Spader has some talent as well, but this movie, from the "shoot-me-in-the-head-before-I-vomit-my-brains-out" opening theme, through the first half hour (which was all I could stand, and I sat through "Hunk" when it came out in the theater), was one huuuuuuge disappointment.