The cast deserves a moment: Gary Oldman, Joan Allen, Jeff Bridges, Sam Elliott, and even minor roles played by the likes of Saul Rubinek (whom I've always liked). Not only that, but picture them at the top of their games, working with the calibre of script you'd expect them to be drawn to. Yeah, it's that good.
Note: spoilers follow...
Now with so much to set up, you definitely don't want to be crunchin' away on Crispers at the beginning of this one; and that pace continues until about the halfway point. One thing that may affect the movie's replay value is the strict ordering of the scenes that's needed to support this pace. For example, get a shot of Senator Laine Hanson (Joan Allen) fooling around with her husband before the sex scandal hits so that we know she likes it, and we'll buy the idea of her younger self engaging in drunken orgies. :-) Or, get clips of Governor Jack Hathaway (William L. Petersen) talking about dying for civil liberties (like any good Democrat) and selflessly risking his life to save another when we're supposed to like him, and then get shots of him in a darkened boardroom asking the female FBI agent if "his girl" got her a drink (like any bad misogynist) when we're supposed to cut ties with him. And while we're on the subject of the FBI agent, giving her boss a sleazy smoker's cough to get us questioning whether she's just pretending to be an FBI agent, while actually working for a tabloid, seems a bit forced, in retrospect.
It's important to note, however, that all of these points are teardrops in the lake of the first time through. I'm just musing about the possibility of them annoying me when I watch it again with my wife later on.
The other idea that's bouncing around in my head has to do with the ending: yes, the squeaky clean "I don't smoke" line - and the ensuing swan song - worked, but I can't help thinking that it separated Hanson (the great, but not petty, leader) from the vast majority of women, leaving the double standard surrounding sexual relations intact, if not reenforcing it. I say this because Hanson succeeded based on her character, but the bar of that character was set so high that if, Heaven forbid, a college girl decides to have sexual relations with two college boys, she may never be able to reach it, no matter how she lives the rest of her adult life. Hence, my saying the ending either doesn't address the double standard (i.e., sure Hanson would've become vice president, even if she had screwed those frat boys... that just isn't this story), or it reenforces it (i.e., no, no, no, her principals weren't enough; if she'd put that penis in her mouth instead of her hand, we'd have us a different ending).
I don't know... it just bugs the heck out of me that a guy can do whatever he wants in his youth - the more the better, it sometimes seems - but a girl experimenting a bit in her youth as she tries to find herself is labeled... probably for life. I read or heard something recently about a sex researcher or educator advocating casual, but informed, sex amongst young people. What I remember of her argument stated that young people have access to two resources that make sexual experimentation difficult in later years: namely, youthful stamina, and a large, curious peer group. What I don't know is whether her argument addressed the double standard on sex; an unnecessary complication - whatever the merits of the theory - in my mind.
