LouHomey From my favorite movies..

Bereamic Awesome Movie

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

gavin6942 A documentary on Arnold Schwarzenegger's gubernatorial campaign in California.What makes Arnold's run interesting is that the governor's seat was the first elected office he held. Although, he was appointed by President George H.W. Bush to the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, in which he served from 1990 to 1993 and was Chairman of California Governor's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports under Governor Pete Wilson.At this point, the film serves as a bit of a history lesson. I had no idea that Dee Snider helped campaign for Arnold, and had completely forgotten the claim of Nazi ties and sympathies, though I could not forget his misogyny issues.This was clearly a "hatchet job" and there must be redeeming qualities to a man who was elected twice. So to call this a documentary when no pro-Arnold people could be found would be unfair. Still a piece of history, but hardly fair.

NoirXephon The primary issue with this movie is the inherent bias contained within it. It is clear throughout the movie what the director thinks about Arnold, and his political position. Even those who are a fan of the "governator" can clearly see the skew within this movie (especially since it is absolutely against him).I am not the biggest fan of Arnold, but I expected a movie that followed his progression from young boy in Austria, eventually to the governorship of the 5th largest economy in the world. Instead, this movie plagued me with a slew of propaganda against the man. I have no personal interest in the man myself, but I was interested to learn more of his past and his movement into the political field. Ultimately, this movie provided a little insight into this, but mostly just took a totally biased view, with the intent to influence the audience.I understand it is difficult to create a documentary without some bias, but it is the filmmaker's duty to create a movie to remove as much bias as possible. This filmmaker does little to hide the fact that he thinks of Arnold as a sham and little more than the devil incarnate. The ultimate goal of a documentary is to provide the facts, without bias (or as much as possible), and leave it to the audience to make their own decision. This film fails in this regard, and in many others as well.

D. B. My expectation of this documentary was that it would cover Arnold Schwarzenegger's run for governor, or political career in traditional "fly on the wall" style.This was not the case, which would be perfectly all right, but for the fact that this so called 'documentary' doesn't actually appear to have any original research put into it at all. A better title would be 'A Tabloid History of Arnold" with the movie (if I can call it that) being laid out not in the order that the events took place, but rather, being shown in the order that unflattering material was brought to light in the press.I suppose that it is possible that the revelations are revealed in true documentary style, in the order that the maker found them, but if this is the case, then this film is a history by the California Democratic Party's opposition research department. In fact, the 'documentary' is narrated and constructed like one long and painfully drawn out political ad, and the perspective laid out is so limited and blatantly political that the hyperbole is occasionally the most interesting/amusing thing about it. My favorite narrator quote: "Unlike today, back at the turn of the century (meaning the late 1890's & early 1900's), the 'Golden State' was swimming in corruption".It isn't necessary to have even the slightest amount of sympathy for Schwarzenegger to be annoyed by this silly production. The omnipotent narrator rants and rants, and even a series of weirdly irrelevant 'talking head' quotes by comedians cannot inject life into this dull and pedantic piece.Needless to say, the film is not really fair to Arnold, suggesting for example that the only reason that he would oppose banning nutritional supplements was that the makers of some of them advertised in bodybuilding magazines that he edits (as if you could find any bodybuilder who is opposed to nutritional supplements) but bias is by no means the most important criticism of this film.A highly opinionated documentary can be a good thing, but this is an unoriginal and crude bit of political hackery, and nothing more. It is quite possible that the majority of criticisms in this production are factually true, if for no other reason than that it appears that the filmmakers actually discovered none of them, but any facts found in this film are so smothered in crude invective that its hard to rely on this film for either information or entertainment.

JustCuriosity I saw this film on the first night of SXSW film festival. It's a solid documentary biopic of actor-turned-Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger. Running with Arnold develops themes that those who have seen the 1970s film Pumping Iron will recognize. The film presents a reasonable, but also polemical picture of Arnold. It is an entertaining, humorous and provocative film that helps explain his life starting from his childhood in small town Austria thru bodybuilding, acting, and finally political stardom. It concentrates more on his faults than his strengths.It's definitely a film worth seeing for those who want to better understand Arnold, but should probably be taken with a grain of salt. The film does tend to go over-the-top in some places. There are several sequences where they link Arnold to Nazi imagery in the context of trying to suggest that Arnold supports corporate control of government, much in the same way that Fascist ideology does. According to the director at the Q&A following the screening, even narrator Alec Baldwin was troubled by these sequences although he ultimately agreed to stay with the project. They also show images of Hurricane Katrina, the Clinton impeachment, the 2000 election and try to connect Arnold to events that really had nothing to do with him. This seems like guilt by visual association. These sequences weaken the focus of the film. They also seem like they can't quite decide whether they are portraying Arnold as a conservative ideologue or an opportunist or perhaps both. This is a solid, interesting, entertaining, funny film that could have been much better.