The Apprentice

Most impressive of all are the performances by Sebastian Stan as the raw and ambitious younger Trump, and Jeremy Strong (the “eldest boy” from “Succession”) as the unconscionable Cohn. This is “The Art of the Deal” told as a Frankenstein dark fable.

Its politics will please no one, but for fans of story and characters, the movie succeeds in its primary goal: telling a good story about humanity, warts, and all.

If Abbasi’s film doesn’t say anything particularly novel about either, it still manages to damn the Don as he would his adversaries: with no restraint or remorse.

If it isn’t a great movie, it’s at least a fascinating and thoughtful one, an even-handed film that doesn’t need to resort to extremes to paint an accurate picture of what America and the world are up against right now, in terms of one particular past and possibly future president.

It has the era’s soundtrack down, from Studio 54 disco to Suicide’s “Ghost Rider.” But it doesn’t have much of a point.

For its first half, “The Apprentice” is kind of a knockout: the inside look at how Trump evolved that so many of us have imagined for so long, and seeing it play out is both convincing and riveting. Yet I have an issue with the movie, and it all pivots around the mystery of Trump. I don’t think “The Apprentice” ever penetrates it.

By halfway, Trump gets more flagrantly cruel, delusional, thin- skinned and aggressive. It’s the kind of charismatic antihero’s journey that might fly in a Scorsese film – arguably the ultimate Trump film is The Wolf of Wall Street – but Abassi and Sherman’s take on the material is largely dutiful.

Authentic and engaging. The commitment to the period-accurate stylization made the film much more immersive than I was expecting. Sebastian Stan is wonderfully thorough in this role, much more than just an impression or an imitation.

(Mauro Lanari) I must hurry to write this comment before the memory of such a forgettable biopic fades. The recent election of the oldest-ever POTUS suggests that the cultural attacks on Trump may have been either ineffective or even counterproductive. Lakatos argued against Popper that the real confrontation is not between theory and reality, "explicans" and "explicandum", but between at least two rival paradigms and then having to choose the least problematic one. I partially disagree, as refuting a hypothesis still necessitates the invention of an alternative. In any case, where is the Democrats' self-criticism regarding their own goals? "The Apprentice" only illustrates neoliberalism between Nixon and Reagan. Wouldn't the Chicago School have also contaminated social democracy? Wasn't it Lyndon Johnson who continued the war in Vietnam despite JFK's wish? Wasn't it Clinton who signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999?

Just more propaganda trying to influence an election. But it failed at the box office and failed in the election interference.

I grew up near Donald Trump and have known him for over six decades. He is honest, caring, and hard-working. He is not biased on any grounds—racial, sexual, or otherwise. One of the country’s greatest men.

Doesn't even sound like Trump at least get an actor who has his accent and mannerisms to a tee if you're going to depict him. Laughable