ClassyWas Excellent, smart action film.

Organnall Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

foghorn_clj You'd think that Robin Williams playing a TV comedian who becomes president would be pure gold. And you'd think that a rigged election as a result of faulty computer voting would just make it more interesting.Unfortunately this movie is neither of those things. Primarily because it couldn't make up it's mind whether it was a comedy or a thriller. And even worse that it doesn't combine those two things but switches rather abruptly between the two. Basically all the characters are half baked, which really is a disservice yo the talent of both Williams and Linney. Even Jeff Goldblum in his very short time on the screen is horribly unimpressive. In fact the best thing about this movie is the cameos by Amy Poehler and Tina Fey right at the end.If you're a fan of Robin Williams as I am skip this one. Go and watch "Patch Adams" or "Good morning Vietnam" and go to your happy place.

goaltenderinterference 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?

CrisPat 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.

Argemaluco I generally like the work of director Barry Levinson,and I have some of his movies among my favourite ones (Diner,Good Morning Vietnam and Wag the Dog).However,I started to loose a little bit of faith on him with his most recent films.Bandits had been very mediocre and Envy had been an unbearable piece of crap,not to mention I could not believe Levinson was involved on it.He needed to do something really good to redeem himself after such film excrement.And although Man of the Year resulted to be enormously superior to Envy (which means practically nothing),it resulted to be a mediocre film.The main fails from this movie are on the screenplay.It is not bad,but for some reason it did not leave me very satisfied.I think it should have been more incisive and sarcastic,and not so bland.Some humor moments fail because they were not well written.However,there are good elements on this movie which make it moderately entertaining.The best thing from the screenplay is the proper commentaries it makes on the world of politics.Besides,there are some good moments of humor and Robin Williams fits well on his character.For that positive elements,I can give a slight recommendation to Man of the Year,although the final experience is mediocre.I hope Levinson has lifted the aim on What Just Happened,his most recent movie.