User reviews

This is an emotional roller-coaster that will keep you watching despite knowing how it is going to end. There are very few films which have the ability to suck in an audience so deeply even though they know what is going to happen.

It raises questions about the 2000 election and does a fair job of cramming several weeks into two hours. The performances are pitch perfect and but Laura Dern in particular should win an Emmy for her portrayal of Katherine Harris. Your party affiliation should not prevent you from watching this film as it bounces back and forth between both campaigns without too overtly taking a side.

I don't know how Jay Roach got involved in directing this project, but he redeemed himself for the horrific "Austin Powers in Goldmember".

Watch it.

If you were paying attention to the United States presidential election in 2000, then I suppose you must have a streak of masochism in order to watch this recapitulation--it is bound to stir up the powerful emotions experienced at the time, no matter what side of the divide you were on. Just read some of the reviews and comments to verify what a hot button issue this still is. If you were not paying attention in 2000, or you are too young to remember, then this film will certainly introduce you to all the major events and issues: hanging chads, dimpled chads, recounts, court cases, accusations of voter suppression, confusing ballots, the status of military votes, and so forth. The major players in this high-stakes drama are all here too, and documentary footage is inserted for believability. The film is definitely more than loosely based on fact, since most of the public statements are taken from the record. It's the extrapolations to what went on behind closed doors that is open to question.

This plays like a thriller, even for those who are familiar with the story. If none of this ever happened, then I think all would agree that this is a good movie with a great plot and fine cast. Laura Dern, as Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, creates a memorable character and Tom Wilkinson is a standout as Bush's legal adviser James Baker (Secratary of State under George H. W. Bush). Wilkinson captures Baker almost to the point where you could mistake him for the real person.

I think it came as a surprise at the time that the United States election process could ever be so fouled up. If there is a non-partisan message to be had from this movie it is that measures should be taken to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. While the 2000 election led to the Election Reform Act of 2002, the process is still far from perfect, especially since implementation details are left up to the individual states. Much controversy still exists over electronic voting machines, requirements for user ID, and so forth. And the current Coleman vs. Franken senate contest in Minnesota, now in its fourth month and still undecided, proves that extremely close contests are still messy affairs. Since there are so many arguments to be made on either side in such cases, I often think that such close elections should be decided by a coin toss.

It seems impossible to find a generally-accepted unbiased telling of the 2000 election. The reviews for all books I have looked into seem to split on party lines. Maybe it is impossible to be impartial on this one.

Recount goes over familiar territory, and for some it will be like opening up a wound that's been covered for several years only to find the pus is still fresh and rotten. Whether you're a democrat or republican- for the latter, of course, your man "won" in the end- a lot of the details in the story of the Florida electoral results in the 2000 Presidential election just flat out stink of corruption and mismanagement. It displays a failure on the part of what should be a somewhat reliable process in an already faulty system (i.e. electoral college, besides the point). What lessons can be taken from the Florida story? Pretty much the story, and the film, acts as a referendum on how things can get so (bleeped), on each party side- democrats not strong enough in the fight at crucial beats, republicans acting like bullies- and the only hope is that it never gets this wretched again.

Whatever thoughts on the issues one will have, it's a worthwhile TV movie based just on the cast alone. Director Jay Roach, usually responsible for silly comedies like Austin Powers and Meet the Parents, tackles the drama with a firm hand (if not the sturdiest camera- hand held of course) on his large group of thespians. Kevin Spacey hasn't been this good in years, and Leary is a welcome presence as a Gore campaign member. Also very noteworthy are small parts for John Hurt, Ed Begley Jr, Bruce McGill. But best of all are Laura Dern in a harrowingly funny turn as dumb-bell Katherine Harris and Tom Wilkinson as tough lawyer James Baker, who comes off as icy as one might expect playing a loyal cadre of the Bush family. They make the movie compulsively watchable, even as the details of the case- the dimple chads, the discrimination, the BS protester problem in Miami-Dade, and ultimately the ruling of the supreme court- make one very sick about the madness unraveling.

Jay Roach (the "Austin Power" series, "Meet the Parents") doesn't seem the right director for a political-driven movie about one of the most controversial elections ever, but he did a good job in charge of this well-executed HBO production. "Recount" features solid performances all around, particularly Kevin Spacey as Ron Klain (Al Gore's recount point man) and Tom Wilkinson as James Baker (Bush's top recount strategist); Laura Dern seemed to have fun playing the ridiculously clueless (and potentially malevolent) Katherine Harris (Florida's Secretary of State), the woman who stopped the recount. The movie works for being wittily unbiased (Spacey's outburst scene: "You know what's funny? I don't even know if I like Al Gore... I just wanna know who actually won this f***ing election!" is pivotal, and his last conversation with Wilkinson/Baker is also a great point) and informative for those who have short-term memory (or were too young 8 years ago). We all know how it's gonna end, and the movie doesn't have the pretension of answering eternal questions like "Who really won the election and would have Al Gore been a better president?" We'll most likely never know the first, and can just wonder about the second. For better or worse, things would've been different had Bush lost, that's for sure. It might not be a solace, but that's the only truth we have, and the makers of "Recount" seem to be aware of that. 7.5/10.

I could not turn away from this movie- not because the outcome was unclear or because I was unfamiliar with the events (I took a class in college the next year entirely dedicated to this debacle) I just found the acting so compelling.

The actors did a fantastic job- they created tension even when I knew what the Supreme Court would say- If you are a political junkie and have not been drinking from your respective party's kool-aid jug for too long you will enjoy this movie.

Those that take offense to this film clearly are delusional about their party or candidates- they can't acknowledge that their side will go to the same lengths as the other guy to win- Recount is not a social commentary on voter fraud- it is a behind the scenes look at the recount teams for Gore and Bush and how they strategized and plotted to WIN-

That does not mean Recount seeks to establish who WON the election- only that there were two camps who wanted to, which we already knew before the vote was so ridiculously close. And I don't see how the film could have done a better job showing us this-

Recount (2008)

A fairly gripping political drama, well acted, and of course with historic filling. I realized just as the credits ran, however, that what had me going throughout was the events, the history, the reliving of a time that seemed to intense an unjust (or at least dubiously just). It wasn't the movie that drove the event, but the other way around.

And so it is with this kind of re-enactment of a big event.

However, there is a sudden letdown after all. I mean, after all, what else is there? Knowing what happened and visualizing it anew isn't quite great cinema.

Even though this is a great telling of those facts. Which is how you come to appreciate and judge it by the end. And it's not enough.

I watched it with someone who didn't live in the U.S. at the time, and had little information about the contested Gore v. Bush election battles. And without me explaining certain events it hovered as an abstract comment on the insider problems of election process. That sounds pretty dull, doesn't it? (She was asleep by the end, and I was not, which says something, but not everything.) Because in fact the contents are pretty dull stuff.

Which makes the movie more remarkable, I suppose—it makes exciting what is a legal maneuvering, office room discussion, telephone call kind of movie. The fact it ever happened is no surprising, given the other options in other countries. But the details are astounding, and those details—from the people cheering when the votes won't get counted to the concession, finally, by the loser—are all telling. About the system, about human nature.

And about rising above to find our better natures. Some of us, some of the time.

I had no idea how convoluted and poorly-handled the 2000 presidential election in Florida really was until seeing this movie. I remember that there were comments in the news about hanging chads, etc., but did not know about all of the legal and other issues that are revealed in the movie. It makes you wonder about all elections in all counties and states, on any issue.

It was absolutely riveting the entire way through--just when you think it was going one way, there would be a reversal. Fictional movies wish they had this many plot twists. My least favorite topic, normally, is politics, so for this movie to make an election in one state riveting, is saying a lot.

The performances were excellent, particularly by Kevin Spacey. The dialog and performances were so natural, it was almost like a documentary.

Great job by all!

All the conservative reviews are here on the last page, and Jesse Jackson is no where to be found to defend our rights? Sigh.

I give this movie a positive review because it deserves it. It was a GREAT movie, in fact, until you quickly begin to notice the bias. So as a film the director did make an attempt to be even-handed and not REALLY make the Bush camp out to be villains. The acting was indeed superb but, again, the direction was fantastic - specifically the editing.

Here's the major problem, previously mentioned: it is clearly, maybe not overtly, but clearly biased. Please read sychonic's and kingarthurups reviews above (well maybe ignore, kingarthurups forehead comments). Although a bit heated, they are very accurate to the tone and bias of the movie. For instance, they make the Republican demonstrators out to be lunatics. They dedicate 66% to 75% of the movie to the Gore camp - seriously, time it.

But in particular look at the U.S. Supreme court proceedings. I have to criticize the director's decision to widdle this down to 3 minutes. The arguments here were key. But more importantly, as Spacey's character says, "this is it!" This should have been THE climax of the film. I was a first year law student when this event occurred and we were all focused on the appellate court hearing in front of the supreme court. Barry Richards, attorney for Bush, ... well it would only be a SLIGHT exaggeration to say that he SLAYED Gore's attorney. The points were valid and hard hitting. In this movie? Let's put it this way. The role was so small, Barry Richard's name isn't even listed in the credits. Compare to David Boies played by Ed Begley, jr. who got to look like a saint/martre with the final last implore to the decency of humanity. Shees!

Again, I highly recommend watching the movie but the many "reviewers" above declaring that this film is fair are clearly delusional and frankly have no business writing a "fair and balanced" review.

There are two immutable facts that were brought out in this excellent film: one, Florida looked absolutely ridiculous in the way they conducted elections; and two, the 2000 election was absolutely stolen.

Florida will forever be stigmatized by butterfly ballots and hanging chads. The fact that election officials in some sixteen counties refused to do the machine recount as ordered shows the incompetency of our officials.

The recount notwithstanding, the manipulation of the voter roles and the subsequent disenfranchisement of 20,000 voters by the clownish Katherine Harris, played perfectly by Laura Dern, casts a permanent stain on the legitimacy of the Bush presidency.

The fact that the details of this movie were well known did not detract one bit from its enjoyment. It was compelling and exciting and the performances of stars like Kevin Spacey, Tom Wilkinson, and Dern made you forget that you knew the ending.

Given the circumstances of the Florida recount and the subsequent damage that the Bush administration has done, it would have been east to take a lot of cheap shots in this film. For the most part, the film avoids this temptation and presents an accurate chronology of the events. The actors seldom overplay their characters.... except for maybe Laura Dern as Harris (though this can be forgiven Harris is such a pathetic and cartoonish character in real life). It was pretty engaging even though most viewers know the outcome in broad strokes. When the authoritative book is done on the last 8 years, these events will be a prominent part in the history. Congrats to HBO for getting there first.

While I did not have the opportunity to see this film from the beginning, there was no notice or disclaimer at the end of the film stating that a recount of the ballots was conducted for the New York Times, and others, that found that using most of the various standards proffered to count the ballots, Bush would have one the recount regardless of the Supreme Cort or other factors. Even if there was a notice or disclaimer in the beginning of the film, there should still have been one at the end also (before the credits). While most reviewers here consider this a fair and balanced portrayal of the 2000 election, the fact that the producers waited 8 years to rehash the Florida recount and release it in an election year is a significant indicator of their partisan motives.

For a complete description of the recount performed for the New York Times, just Google:"New York Times recount of Florida ballots 2000".

"The Truth Is Out There"

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted a six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies.

The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago study was commissioned by eight media companies -- The Associated Press, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, the St. Petersburg Times, The Palm Beach Post, The Washington Post and the Tribune Co., which includes the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, the Orlando Sentinel and Baltimore Sun, as well as other papers.

Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all under-votes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.

In the American election of 2000, Al Gore polled more votes than George W. Bush; but lost, owing to the disproportional nature of the way that votes are counted. Even then, Bush owed his victory to a win in Florida by a margin so narrow that normal democratic practice would have been to recount. But the recount was blocked by a Supreme Court ruling, issued by judges who had mostly been appointed by Bush's Republican party. 'Recount' reconstructs the legal proceedings following election day as a drama-documentary. As such, it's interesting, piecing together the process; but it's not completely satisfactory. One problem is its own political stance. One view is simple: the Republicans stole the election. But another view says that both sides were only fighting their corners; and as the Gore campaign sought not just that votes be counted again, but also that they be counted differently, the issue was not so clear cut. If the voters have not been given machines to vote on that work properly, that's terrible, but it's also hard to fix after election day. 'Recount' generally supports the second view, and doesn't directly allege Republican wickedness; but somehow, most of the Democrats portrayed are more personally sympathetic than their Republican peers. The film feels like the attempt of liberals trying to be neutral - the result is less authoritative than pure documentary, but muted as polemic. That said, if Laura Dern's portrayal of Florida Secretary of State Katharine Harris is not libellous, then this is even more alarming than if it isn't. Another issue is with the use of the starry cast: having Kevin Spacey in the lead, playing a relatively unknown Democratic campaigner, reminds you of who you are actually watching and not whom he is supposed to be.

Although often criticised as an unsophisticated oaf, Michael Moore, in 'Fahrenheit 911', made some interesting points about how the election decision can be seen as part of a wider process disempowering poor (and especially black) America. The real question is perhaps, not whether this judgement was wrong but whether one could imagine the same decision being taken in the opposite direction. And as I write on the possible eve of Barack Obama's election, that question seems as pertinent as ever.

If you thought a movie about the controversial 2000 Presidential campaign recount in Florida, you're wrong. Just when you think it's some crazy movie, you recall that it all really happened. At times, only the CNN footage reminds us that it really did happen. The drama and gravitas of the story should not be lost, but is, upon Americans. The movie not only accurately portrays actual events, but notes their context and their importance to American history, an analysis that many have already so soon forgotten.

The star-filled cast's fame does not disservice or overshadow the characters they portray, a fine balance of talent and respect. Special note, however, must be paid to Laura Dern's awe-inspiring role as the aloof, artificial Secretary of State, Katherine Harris. Despite makeup which makes prostitutes jealous, her mannerisms and uncanny slanted poise cause incredulous disbelief that such a wacky imitation could be enacted. All the cast, however, is likewise surrealistically convincing.

The hard working, late hours, and soul-sucking reality of working in a campaign office, often a suite rented out of a strip shopping mall with temporary desks and phone lines cheaply laid in for only a few months' time, is evident and pervasive. Such atmospheres lend the movie a realistic feel of grassroots-level work. One is likely to develop a profound respect for the idealism and vigor (or ego) of such volunteers with such spartan environments.

Music is not even necessary as the chaotic, meaningless buzz of a campaign office or the silent seriousness of a limo ride are soundtracks in and of themselves. The seriousness of the situation does not let the viewer go for the entire movie's arc, from the movie's opening seconds when an elderly lady's seemingly innocent action will cause screaming suspended disbelief in all viewers alike. The tension continues for over an hour more, frustrating and terrifying viewers until an ending whose frustration compares with few other feelings. Even typically dry court readings gain an impossible level of drama, tension, and emotional disbelief to the point of tears as the movie progresses through the increasingly unbelievable tale. The dirty tactics are unsurprising, given recent politics, but to witness the beginnings of the such era in retrospective is humbling. The animosity of the foes is tempered with a thin grasp on reality and humanity, summoned by powers eluding most of us common lay men and women.

The film is so accurate and nearly documentary which is suitable for those of all political persuasions. The far more important point is the preservation of the Union and our ability to pass power peacefully and civilly. Affairs even weightier than party affiliation are at stake. The movie is trying on the heart and mind as it begs us to question how insane the electoral system is, a view with which those of all political persuasions may likely agree. Nonetheless, the system somehow survived to live another day, a day that will again return.

Good movie, which tells the story of the biggest fraud in the history of the majority elections in the USA. In 2000 Al Gore had more votes than George W. Bush, but an articulated coup between the government, Florida delegates and the national Republican command and then with the disqualifying Supreme Court contribution, which suspectedly prevented the counting of votes that would confirm Gore's victory , the result turned shamefully and Bush was eventually elected. His victory ended up being decisive in making a series of disastrous diplomatic decisions, obscure relations with future terrorist leaders and consequently wars in the Middle East that claimed the lives of thousands of people, deteriorating relations between the countries of that region and that made the world totally insecure .

Did you hear the one about the hanging chad and the president who stole an election? Unfortunately for the United States this isn't a joke but the sad reality of the 2000 Presidential Election. George Walker Bush -- now known by 75% of this country as the guy who screwed things up -- may have lost the popular vote (and arguably the electoral vote), yet still managed to defeat Al Gore to become the 43rd President. Recount, HBO's latest made for TV movie, rewinds the game tape and dramatizes the events that forever changed the fate of this country. While Recount is based on a fascinating historical event, it tends to play out like most TV movies: substandard, heavy-handed and, at times, downright silly. Yet, despite its weaknesses, the strength of the subject matter somehow manages to keep things entertaining, informative, suspenseful and (as a result of the facts behind how an election was stolen) infuriating.

In 1976 Alan J. Pakula broke the mould, crafting (what I consider) the best political potboiler of all time: All the President's Men. What makes ATPM so powerful and effective is its relentless commitment to reproducing the events it portrays as honestly and accurately as possible. Pakula was a master at creating tense, paranoid and suffocating films and this ability translated perfectly to ATPM, where the suspense and fear of unknown forces was always palpable. Recount director Jay Roach is best known for directing comedies, very broads ones at that, and I'm flummoxed why he would be chosen to call the shots on a film that should be as sober as a supreme court judge. Roach is a fish out of water and his inability to finesse the truth into something believable and seemingly unbiased is the root of what is wrong with Recount.

I don't watch political movies wanting to know the political allegiance of the writer, the producers, the director and all the actors. On the contrary, in order for me to feel engaged by a political film, I want to feel as if I'm witness to something as objective and devoted to fact as possible. The last thing I want is to be manipulated or guided by a partisan agenda, the very fault that makes Recount (almost) unforgivable. This historical drama offers no such objectivity, opting instead to bombard the viewer with heavy doses of overwhelming bias. Simply put, the Democrats are all portrayed as purveyors of good, honest and righteous standards and practices while the Republicans are corrupt, conniving and downright evil sons-of-bitches. Even though writer Danny Strong has to be assigned some blame for his thin characterizations, Roach gets zero cred for doing nothing to soften the heavy handedness of these portrayals.

Now don't get me wrong, I do believe the Republicans stole the election through the employ of dirty (barely legal) politics, but if the people behind Recount had realized the truth of these events would be far more powerful than editorial liberties, this movie could have been profound. I suppose they felt the truth had to be made 'sexy' and that one-dimensional archetypes would ensure their message be heard loud and clear. In other words, Recount does the equivalent of putting white cowboy hats on the Democrats and Black ones on the Republicans (replete with waxed moustaches for them to twist as they cast an evil smirk).

Because Recount will undoubtedly be discredited by the right as left-wing propaganda, the filmmakers cheat this story out of a chance of ever being heard (or taken seriously), which is painfully ironic since the story it tells is how the American public was cheated out of knowing who really should have ben the President in 2000.

http://eattheblinds.blogspot.com/

In the 2008 Presidential Election, Vice President Al Gore ran for the Democrats and George W. Bush ran for the Republicans. Many believe that Florida determined the 2008 race, resulting in Bush winning the election. It was alleged that "hanging chads," could have resulted in inaccurate machine counts. Gore sued for a recount, Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris (Laura Dern) is pressured to call for a recount, the Florida and U.S. Supreme courts do not agree on what circumstances should sanction the Florida recount.

At the time, Bush's brother, Jeb was the governor of Florida, Republican Katherine Harris was Florida's Secretary of State (Laura Dern). Excellent way to learn about the election and understand why a "hanging chad" became such a topic of conversation.

After living through the actual event it is sad to see that fiction has here been presented as fact. What is clear now as then, the Gore supporters and liberal media would stop at nothing to change the results of the 2000 election. Not once has the fact that major media outlets actually recounted the votes following the election with the outcome the same mentioned. The one sided view is clear as democrats are shown as the white knights with only the intent of merely counting all the votes. And, of course the republicans are portrayed as evil, lying and suppressing the vote of the people. The line where Governor George Bush states "My little brother" is laughable. The portrayal of Katherine Harris is clearly vindictive. If you want the liberal view of their beliefs of the 2000 election, this is a ten star movie for you. If you actually want to learn the truth, it is a total waste of your time. Clearly a movie written, produced, and acted for the benefit of rewriting history for a slanted point of view.