SVT Play: All Systems Operational Normally

Watch Online The Front Runner

(9980) 6.1 113 min 2018

The Front Runner is a movie starring Hugh Jackman, Vera Farmiga, and J.K. Simmons. In 1987, U.S. Senator Gary Hart's presidential campaign is derailed when he's caught in a scandalous love affair.

Mark O'Brien, J.K. Simmons, Vera Farmiga, Hugh Jackman
Drama, History, Biography
Jason Reitman

Disclaimer: This site does not store any files.

Product details

Audio English  Deutsch  Italiano  Español  Français  Gaeilge  Svenska  Nederlands
Subtitles 日本語  Čeština  Português  Australia  한국어  Filipino  Tiếng Việt  हिन्दी 
Quality 480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres Drama, History, Biography
Director Jason Reitman
Writer Jay Carson, Matt Bai, Matt Bai, Jason Reitman
Stars Mark O'Brien, J.K. Simmons, Vera Farmiga, Hugh Jackman
Country Canada, USA
Also Known As O Favorito, Pewny kandydat, El candidato, 爆料世代, The Front Runner - Il vizio del potere, Favorit, Der Spitzenkandidat, Candidat favori, Így ne legyél elnök, フロントランナー, Ο υποψήφιος, O Candidato Favorito
Runtime 1H 53M
Description In 1987, U.S. Senator Gary Hart's presidential campaign is derailed when he's caught in a scandalous love affair.

Top reviews

Saturday, 26 Dec 2020 12:54

As a Christian, I can tell you that Tim Robbins does a lot more justice to his role in the film than Christian Bale did. It wasn't overly Christian, I'm afraid. Although I am a Christian, I was surprised that Robbins' character didn't bite off more than he could chew. It's true, he was a hero, and the story is about how he used the religion to win his war against the communists. But I felt he did more harm to his religion and his country than good. He probably believed in his faith to believe in himself, but it was probably more about himself, rather than Jesus. It was more about making a big "welcome back" for his father, who is sick. It's true that at the end of the film, he had his life restored, and that was a great victory. But, overall, it seemed that his faith in his faith is what had him winning. I can see why some would be impressed by the film, but I think it's too much an American victory story. The good thing about the film is that it isn't Christian propaganda. It's told as it was, not as it was in a film made by a Christian who has a bigger hand than a little one. Tim Robbins plays an extremely inspiring role and deserves a good Oscar, but he probably won't win. I think he did a great job, but he would have been better off playing the son of a church founder or the son of a poor little boy. He also probably would have won his Oscar for best actor, but the person who deserved it wasn't nominated for best supporting actor. I hope the Academy judges their decisions with more sense. Anyway, I can't really give more than a 5.5, and I'm giving it a 7.5 just to correct that it's Christian propaganda.
Thursday, 03 Dec 2020 12:17

Some good historical accounts from around the world have been drawn from the writings of Joseph Conrad and others. At times, however, I have found them overly glib and didactic, despite having been told that this was a true story, when it's clear they were not. The film about the first world war comes to mind. More recently, the film called "Troy" dealt with an ancient culture of the southern part of Italy. The film did an excellent job of explaining the differences between ancient Rome and the barbaric barbarians who invaded its cities and conquered its lands. If the film was to be made with the intention of telling a history, it would have been better, I think. However, since it is supposed to be more of a drama, it leaves out so many things. For example, there are many strange things that happened that were probably not explained at all. The film tells us that Leonardo's parents were French, and while it's true that they were French, we don't know what made Leonardo French. We know that Leonardo's mother and father were Italian, but it seems that they weren't Italian. We're told that Leonardo was apparently exiled from Italy. Perhaps we'll find out if this is true, but the film gives us little information about Leonardo's fate. Perhaps he didn't die. Perhaps he lived to be an important figure. Whatever the case, the film gives us little information. Leonardo was probably known to have had a very strong Christian faith. He is shown visiting a church in London. However, it's not clear what happened there. Maybe Leonardo met up with a group of good-hearted young men, which were there to help him and his sister escape from the Nazi concentration camp. If Leonardo was in Britain, he wouldn't have been able to escape from the camps in Germany. And how did Leonardo make it to London? We're told that he ended up in the country house of a writer who was much older than Leonardo was. There, Leonardo was befriended by a woman who was a noble, nobleman. Her son is shown fleeing a bad storm in a boat. The man who was sailing the boat was Italian, but Leonardo was clearly British. A woman was shown leaving an estate for a trip to the country house of the writer. The estate was the most mysterious place of all, until the film decided to show it in detail. Leonardo must have had a great story for the writer to want to befriend him. The writer was portrayed as a true gentleman, but we never know why he took Leonardo in. Leonardo would be a literary star who had a great story. He would have been an important figure in Europe. Instead, the writer was shown to have an inferiority complex that had him in an unappreciative position of social superiority. He was unappreciative of Leonardo for taking him in, and therefore didn't deserve to know him. Leonardo's path wasn't as good as it could have been. We are told that Leonardo was Italian and spent some time in France. There are some great lessons about loyalty in film, but a young Leonardo might have learned the lesson of loyalty to his family. We know that Leonardo and his family were imprisoned in Germany, but Leonardo probably had a family that welcomed him and loved him. But when he returned to Italy, his family didn't get along with Leonardo. Leonardo's father was shown to be a cold, insensitive person. We are shown that Leonardo's father suffered from mental problems, and the father didn't care for Leonardo. Leonardo's father had a good influence on him. Leonardo might have learned a lesson, but it wasn't what he expected. Leonardo may have had a great story, but it wasn't as great as he thought. This film is set in the early 1800s, and yet I never see any black people in it. While I like that, I'm glad that the film left out that, while there are black people in it, they don't show up until the end. It would have been great if they did. This film's plot seems to be going nowhere. Leonardo's story and how he came to learn of the change in the world from Pope Pius II is never explained. There are some elements that do work, but I think they should have been elaborated on more. In any event, the film doesn't tell us enough about Leonardo to draw us into his story. We see Leonardo's adventures on the road. But we don't really see
Sunday, 15 Nov 2020 23:22

A picture with a title like the "Front Runner" is at the very least a strange title for a film that is not remotely about the corruption of a true American president. But we've seen this movie before and, if nothing else, we've seen it before in such a manner as to make it less-than-taut when considering a movie as a whole. In that regard, the effort put forth by some of the cast was very impressive. I will not dwell on the performances, but I'll point out the strengths and weaknesses that I saw in the performances. I really enjoyed the performance of Alan Arkin, who is clearly a man of great talent and talent worth emulating. That said, I didn't see him as the Russian presidential advisor in the film. I saw him as the man who works at the Hillhouse. Having said that, I think that the role was played very well by several other actors. I thought that Haley Joel Osment was very good in his portrayal of Donald Trump. I liked the way that he played the role of a younger, wiser, more sensitive, more complicated version of Trump. The biggest weakness, however, was the lack of a real plot and the manner in which the plot line was handled. Not really a big problem, but I would've liked to have seen more explanation as to how Trump came to the position he was given. This would have helped the movie feel more complete, more complete. I think that, without giving away any more of the plot, it would've made for an interesting and memorable viewing experience, but it did not do that. I don't think that there are many directors who have been given the opportunity to direct movies as big as this and yet have not done the best that they could with it. Most of the time, this means that the movie feels at times like it's trying to do too much, but the acting is still very good and the direction is good. So I think that we've come to the end of the other side of the fence. I think that we're at the halfway point of the production of this movie. It's still a good movie, but I think that it will have to be seen with another person, someone who is not biased against Donald Trump, or someone who doesn't mind picking apart the integrity of a movie by reading the plot summary. This movie is a good movie. It's also not that great a movie, but it's better than a lot of the movies that are coming out.

Write a review