Watch All the President's Men For Free

Absolutely the worst movie.

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

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

"All the President's Men" (1976) follows the investigation led by Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward (Robert Redford) and Carl Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman) on the Watergate scandal, running parallel with President Nixon's campaign for reelection. As the two lead characters see their investigation unfold, hardly, must I say, they get banged down by your usual, but not quite so, "newspaper" drama : missing sources, pettiness of the story, abstinence and denial by the witnesses, lack of hard evidence and, above all, threat to the survival of the Post itself.This is a gripping time piece. Almost half of the story is spent at the newspaper's offices, overshadowed by the permanent key-tapping of ardent typewriters and the constant chatter of young secretaries, which add a great sense of urgency and authenticity to a typical 1970s Washington workplace, where Woodward and Bernstein, sitting face-to-face in an odd, diagonal line that becomes a subtle symbol for a head-butting professional relationship, learn to first tolerate each other (and each other's egos) before uniting to unveil the truth. The interactions between Hoffman and Redford throughout the movie are as delightful to watch as they are crucial to making William Goldman's Academy Award-winning script reach its climax. We, as spectators, pay attention to these two very powerful actors' every word with such care and eagerness without even seeing through their banter and mistakes, breathing sighs of relief when catching a loose second and setting the alarm as the next one arrives. In the meantime, we get glimpses of written notes swinging in every direction from Woodward, mainly, creating a true journalistic feel, and enthralling conversations over the phone from both characters, desperately attempting to connect with not only the people behind the scandal, but also with the obscure situation on which they vainly light their lamps on, to a point where the phone becomes a mere extension of the hand and the absence of voice on the other end of the wire provokes an expression of total indifference. The story hides behind this progressive and discreet line of events without ever declaring "right" or "wrong", and plays with the writers' heads, leading them to frustration, unaided by the pressure of their superiors, the Metro News' supervisor Harry Rosenfeld (Jack Warden) and the Post's Ben Bradlee (Jason Robards, in a sublime performance).The remainder of the movie explores Woodward and Bernstein's (or "Woodstein", as Bradlee once cries out, interrupting the high-pitched noise of the office for more than two seconds) attempts to force the truth (or, at least, parcels of it) out of various mouths (White House bookkeepers, attorneys, lawmen, you name it) and shows with true excitement the abusive paraphrasing and deduction the two men make with a less-than-minimal amount of words or simple nods from the speakers (or non-speakers). In fact, the two are so convinced of the story's credibility that they unequivocally trade sentences for common sense, really. This is where the movie falters; its will and urgency to depict these moments rapidly makes them seem trivial and forgettable. For instance, an "informant" of Woodward's ("Deep Throat", as they call him) only agrees to meet with him in a dark, underground parking, but the movie never truly gives his character the proper gravitas and importance that his name really bears, historically speaking.Nevertheless, "All the President's Men" is the prototype of a solid and honest depiction of a historical event or, in this case, a more or less extended period of time marked by historical events. Alan J. Pakula's camera is turning around America's capital with remarkable ease, giving us the feeling that we have already been there, with Woodward and Bernstein, and capturing the charm of residential homes, the cacophony of midnight streets and the peacefulness of everyday places, such as libraries and diners. As already mentioned, the dynamics of the characters and of their relationships elevate the movie way above average, but the thoroughness to get the story "just the right way" makes it even greater. At some points during the movie, we are projected with real-time speeches from Nixon and his entourage or with journalistic coverage from 1972 and 1973 on a small television set in the office, further down the road from Woodward's small cabinet. As we exchange glances from the coverage on TV to Woodward's continuous typing, we take a step back and contemplate the successful effort of converting the broadcasted story into a much more intimate one.

"All the President's Men" may be more historically inaccurate than accurate but it sure details a depth of political corruption at the time seemed unfathomable. Doesn't mean one can actually do less these days though, but when people seem to be genuinely pleased that newspapers are indeed dying, what they are essentially saying is that one of major tools to monitor the proper workings of government is no longer necessary. Thus, corruption can continue unchecked, democracy eroded even further.When I first watched this film, that's over 20 years after it's release. I had no idea about any of the details of Watergate whatsoever. I mean, I was a mare child in some classy school in London.Over 30 years before that was, Richard Nixon, impeached for spying on and sabotaging his political rivals and it all came to light because a handful of burglars got caught breaking into National Democratic Headquarters, which were located in an apartment complex known as "Watergate". The story was revealed due to a couple of reporters at the Washington Post, Woodward and Bernstein. That's it, that's all I knew. I didn't even know Woodward and Bernstein's first names. Just the bare minimum (I mean, I think ANY American should know that much, no? But I'm 150% English. With added 50% of USA and rising? that's 200% from both worlds).Here's the thing though. It doesn't matter that you don't know who Bob Haldeman was, you'll figure out enough of what's going on via context, and then the rest of the movie will work its magic on you. By the time the credits roll you'll be saying, that was so awesome, even though you still couldn't tell me what John Ehrlichmans title was at the White House. I've explained the level of complexity in the story as way of illustrating all the challenges this movie overcomes. What winds up happening isn't that the complexity overwhelms the viewer the viewer picks up on the necessary elements and enjoys the movie, while the Watergate-knowledgeable viewer winds up having a film full of details and minutiae to cherish.How do they do it? By focusing on the excitement of it. The adventure. All the President's Men is a thriller, people!! This is the greatest detective story of all time. Woodward and Bernstein were on a quest for the truth, and the truth was being protected by the most powerful people on the planet, with the full force of the government behind them!Woodward and Bernstein slowly come together as a team, and then slowly come to realise exactly what they're dealing with. Their suspicion grows. Evidence mounts.But as the story builds, so does the pressure. The stakes. Other newspapers are racing them to find the truth and to break the story first. People are trying to discredit them. At one point, their editor, Ben Bradlee (portrayed by Jason Robards, who won an Academy Award for this role) tell them, Were under a lot of pressure, you know, and you put us there. Nothings riding on this except the, uh, first amendment to the Constitution, freedom of the press, and maybe the future of the country. Not that any of that matters, but if you guys f*ck up again, Im going to get mad. Goodnight.He wasn't exaggerating, either. Had the Nixon Whitehouse succeeded in blocking their investigation and remained in power, who knows what the consequences would have been for the press. It certainly wouldn't have boded well for the Washington Post, as Nixon most assuredly would have done everything in his power to bring them down."All the President's Men" is truer to the craft of journalism than to the art of storytelling, and that's its problem. The movie is as accurate about the processes used by investigative reporters as we have any right to expect, and yet process finally overwhelms narrative -- we're adrift in a sea of names, dates, telephone numbers, coincidences, lucky breaks, false leads, dogged footwork, denials, evasions, and sometimes even the truth. Just such thousands of details led up to Watergate and the Nixon resignation, yes, but the movie's more about the details than about their results.That's not to say the movie isn't good at accomplishing what it sets out to do. It provides the most observant study of working journalists we're ever likely to see in a feature film (Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein may at last, merciful God, replace Hildy Johnson and Walter Burns as career models). And it succeeds brilliantly in suggesting the mixture of exhilaration, paranoia, self-doubt, and courage that permeated the Washington Post as its two young reporters went after a presidency.Newspaper movies always used to play up the excitement and ignore the boredom and the waiting. This one is all about the boredom and the waiting and the tireless digging; it depends on what we already know about Watergate to provide a level of excitement. And yet, given the fact that William Goldman's screenplay is almost all dialogue, almost exclusively a series of scenes of people talking (or not talking) to each other, director Alan J. Pakula has done a remarkable job of keeping the pace taut. Does History still repeats itself?

"All the Presidents Men" isn't about the water-gate scandal but the incredible journalism required to uncover it, and the overwhelming repression of the facts that Nixon achieved by abusing his power.We meet Woodward and Bernstein who seem to compliment each other so well that their boss not only assigns them to uncover water-gate together, but he nicknames them Woodstein. Bernstein has been in the business since he was 16, so he has more experience with writing than Woodward, who got to the Washington Post 9 months before the beginning of water-gate. However, Bernstein is light on facts, and he's desperate for a story so he infers more than he uses factual evidence. Woodward, on the other hand, is an honest man that has a drive to uncover the truth that is unmatched by Bernstein. They compliment each other perfectly.The film gets a bit confusing plot-wise towards the end, but what it succeeds at is making the viewer feel how Woodstein felt, and revealing the extent to which Nixon went to cover up details, as well as the sheer scale of the scandal. The way in which the film slowly unravels the scandal until Woodward realizes he and no one else is safe is perfect. The film is surprisingly comedic at many moments, such as the long shot of how Bernstein got into a certain meeting, as well as (of course) many very tense moments, including one long take that slowly, almost imperceptibly zooms in on Woodward while people gather in the background, showing Woodward's focus, as well as ours. This scene is particularly involving and exciting, despite just being a man talking on the phone, because of this reason. Anot her one is a scene in which they are trying to confirm who "P" is. The set up is crucial for that one. The film is chock full of these moments, they allows us feel the tension and paranoia that they did, the latter being most notable in Woodward's multiple meetings with "Deep Throat", which take place in an empty, dimly lit garage in which we never get a clear shot of Deep Throat's face, making him mysterious, and in one scene, scary. It's an incredibly involving movie, and it's final shot reflects it's message perfectly: two TVs playing Nixon being elected in front of and behind Woodward and Bernstein, who face each other, writing in between the two TVs. Nixon is on the outside, smiling as many people cheer around him. But at the core of this image are two people, Woodward and Bernstein, uncovering the scandal from the inside with nothing but typewriters.

This movie retells the role of two young reporters in the downfall of president Richard Milhous Nixon. It is now 40 years since this movie first appeared and it still strongly resonates with me. The reporters, played by Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman as Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, show the tenacity and courage it took to expose the crimes and misdemeanours of Nixon and the people in his administration that resulted in the ruin of lives and careers. The movie couldn't cover the range of misdeeds that marked this administration in its use of power, unprecedented in the history of the United States. However, once they smelled a rat, the government bloodhounds couldn't stop them in their mission. I was riveted by how they sought out the people they needed to question to get at the truth. The information they received was often volunteered unaware by those who revealed names and other information. At one point after interviewing a book-keeper, played superbly by Jane Alexander, Bernstein came back to the newsroom with notes scribbled on bits of paper, napkins etc. One lead followed another with personal contacts, phone calls, door knocking and combing through lists. Trying to be coy, they used the technique of raising "just one more thing" to elicit key bits of evidence without appearing too inquisitive. The two young men were supported, questioned relentlessly, and watched closely by older newsman and boss, played by Jack Warden. Jason Robards shined in the role as the iconic Ben Bradlee, the managing editor. This movie gives a real taste of the legwork, digging and intuitive journalism that led to one of the most dramatic stories in US. political history.