Watch Nixon For Free

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

I've never really been a fan of Oliver Stone, and wasn't when I first watched this in a theatre, and less so now that I watch it again on cable. I think that we all knew that Stone would do a hatchet job on Nixon, and that he did.During this viewing, in addition to my own remembering, I had the gift of YouTube. Take, for example, the 1962 concession speech when he lost the gubernatorial election in California. First watch it in the film. I didn't remember it quite so negatively as the film portrayed, though it was far from Nixon's finest hour. I immediately watched that concession speech on You Tube. Sure enough, while negative, Nixon was much more in control of his speech and mannerisms than the film implies, and it came across much more reasonably than in the film's depiction. And then there's the sweating and the 5 o'clock shadow. Certainly traits that Nixon did suffer from. But he didn't sweat as often or as profusely as Stone depicted. He often looked clean shaven (although I'm sure he had to work at it).And then there's Anthony Hopkins' characterization of Nixon. We should not expect the kind of mimicry that David Frye did in his impressions, but I found Anthony Hopkins' portrayal way off target. Nixon was not fat with ill-fitting suits, as is Hopkins. The speech was not even close. Similarly, over the closing credits, Nixon's farewell speech to staff is recreated. Watch it on the film. Then watch it on You Tube. What in the film appears terribly painful was, in my view, perhaps Nixon's finest hour...and by the way, he wasn't sweating half as much as Oliver Stone portrayed.The two castings that rang most true for me were Joan Allen as Pat Nixon...almost perfect (although that's not to say that she did what is portrayed in the film); and Paul Sorvino who had Henry Kissinger's speech patterns down perfectly. Edward Herrman was quite good in the small role of Nelson Rockefeller...not so much in looks, but in body language. David Hyde Pierce seemed quite suited to be John Dean. The rest of the main characters were, in my view botched...botched to the point where Haldeman and Erlichman almost come off looking good! In the last 15 or so minutes of a very long film, it seems as if Stone attempts to be a little more sympathetic to Nixon. He fails.Now I know what you're saying...that I'm an annoyed Republican. Nope. The first time I ever voted -- in 1968 -- I voted for Nixon, but the next time around I didn't vote for him because he lied about his secret plan to end the Vietnam War. In fact, I voted Democractic in virtually every election since 1968. But, fair is fair, and this film is simply not fair. As I said, most of us expected a hack job from Oliver Stone, and that's exactly what we got.

Like other reviews, I have never been fond of Oliver Stone movies, but this is an exception. Anthony Hopkins is nothing short of amazing in the film. Hopkins plays the role of the late Richard Nixon. The film has a great perspective of the psychological issues Nixon went through from his days as a boy to his resignation as president.The movie shows many of these issues and how they manifested themselves to Nixon's fall from grace. First, we see the threatening nature of his father combined with the "saint"-like qualities of his mother and how they affected him. We see Nixon later feel haunted by the Kennedy family and the success John and Bobby had rising up the political ranks until their lives were tragically ended. We see Nixon's overwhelming desire for the presidency tests his marriage to Pat, brilliantly played by Joan Allen. In addition, we see a man who feels he is above the law during the late part of his first term. In summary, all of his demons haunt him and this is brilliantly displayed in the film.I also liked to see the drama inside the White House. The statesman Henry Kissinger, played by Paul Sorvino, was great and his accent was very similar to the real Kissinger. We see Bob Haldeman (James Woods) portrayed as anti-Semitic with his cruel comments about Kissinger's background. David Hype Pierce of Frasier fame plays John Dean, a man who vowed to not take the fall for the Watergate scandal. As the movie develops, we are intrigued with the drama and how the administration fell apart. Hopkins' outrage in the Oval Office after a conference telling of the withdrawal from Vietnam is great acting. We see Nixon feel appreciated by the people. He then blames Ted Kennedy for the press' questions about Watergate.Joan Allen's role has been criticized by some others but I thought it was top-notch. She plays Nixon's wife who stands up to her husband upon losing in the California governor race in 1962. She threatens him with divorce and he says to the press core "you won't have Nixon to kick around anymore." After LBJ decides to not run, he changes his mind and runs in 1968. Pat at first is upset but then allows him to run. However, during his presidency, Pat calls out her husband as they don't vacation together and he changes as the quest for power and control seriously damages the marriage. She plays the loyal wife but does get her two cents in.The rest of the cast is top-notch to say the least. Bob Hoskins plays the manipulative J. Edgar Hoover who has a major grudge against the Kennedys. Powers Boothe plays Alexander Haig, the man who finally convinces Nixon that he is in severe trouble and peril with impeachment looming. E.G. Marshall plays the bitter John Mitchell. Mary Steenburgen plays Nixon's mother whose life and influence overshadow her son's life in several occasions through the film. Larry Hagman plays Jack Jones, a Texas man (reminds me of his role on Dallas) who once was an ally to Nixon but their alliance falls apart later in the film. A great line from Hagman "Mr. President, do you forget who got you where you are?" Nixon: "The American people did." Hagman:"Oh really? That can be changed."I have seen the movie three times and intrigued by it every time. I wished I had seen when it first came out. If you love history or intrigued by the crucial period of the late 60's and early 70's, you will love this movie! Highly rated!

Without doubt Anthony Hopkins performance as Richard Nixon cements his position as one of the finest and most powerful actors of the last 20 years. Without bearing any great resemblance, he gets closer to inhabiting the almost impenetrable enigma that was Nixon than any other actor could do. Looking beyond his towering portrayal, the performances of the supporting cast are mostly exemplary. You just know that James Woods and JT Walsh were born to play Haldeman and Ehrlichman. Ed Harris is a chilling Howard Hunt, Mary Steenburgen a dedicated but controlled and ultimately unaffectionate mother, Powers Boothe a loyal but pragmatic Al Haig, Bob Hoskins a thoroughly devious J Edgar Hoover and Madeleine Kahn a delightfully outspoken Martha Mitchell. If I had to quibble I would say that Joan Allen makes Pat Nixon a far steelier character than she probably was and EG Marshall is too old to play John Mitchell. Oliver Stone does not play too fast and loose with the real story and endeavours to explore Nixon's childhood and other events in his life to try to explain what what made him what he became. Occasionally he is more sympathetic than one might have expected. The use of black and white is overdone, although real footage is skilfully interlaced with the acting. But the ultimate triumph is Hopkins' performance.

I want to preface this by saying I'm not lambasting the film for any grievance with the portrayal one way or the other. It is an ordinary portrait of Nixon all told, as has been rehabilitated into public consciousness: a broken man who could achieve anything except the one thing he wanted to, to be loved and whole. His plight is ordinary in the sense that it is deeply human, this is how we have retrogradely dramatized Nixon in order to be able to understand his actions. His downfall, also human: the desire to cling to the controls of a life that is far beyond our scope or any four-year presidential term. The machinery or system keeps grinding out a narrative and we have only a small window to effect any change at all.So we unravel from Watergate, where all control was lost from too much desire for it. We piece Nixon's image in a reverse Kane style; from inside, together with this man looking for himself.If I am lambasting the film, it's for how much it grew out of hand as a film. It is very much Stone doing Nixon; feverish ramblings from personal darkness, powerful but manipulative rhetorics. Shamelessly emotional when it serves a purpose. We're spared nothing in the cinematic onslaught of different footage, dutch angles, slow-motion, light flares, incessant cuts and counter-cuts. No symbolism is too hamfisted: blood oozing from a steak as use of nuclear weapons is contemplated, superimpositions of Nixon's face on Mao's as the analogy is being forced, a gigantic Nixon looking pensive superimposed on the skies the day before Dallas. I believe Stone took on Natural Born Killers solely as a test run for the madness of this. Of course that film was a deliberate mess, pitched as hysterical satire. This is hysterically assembled, helter skelter.On the part of Stone, my view is that control was lost from the desire to be America's objective chronicler. In the early stages I believe the film was intended to be one long reverie and internal monologue triggered by the Watergate tapes. No doubt Stone was familiar with Robert Altman's film on Nixon and understood the project to be fundamentally visual. The idea was that we would visit, from this room where an old weary man is listening to his own voice, different stops in a long life in and out of the public eye, looking from both ends, looking for a narrative and who controlled the telling. In lieu with JFK, I believe part of the film was meant to be an unreliable, paranoid testimony shaped from memory. In lieu with JFK where the film was the trial that never happened, this would be the televised public apology that did. A confessional but one we could trust?But it grew out of hand, as did the man's ambitions.