Nixon

source: Nixon

A surreal and sensationalistic portrait of Nixon, that paints a more complex and human picture of the president than any other film. The historical aspects are often inaccurate and speculative, but it's important to realize that Nixon is not a historical drama, but a character study. And as such, it's quite illuminating. On the downside, Oliver Stone seems to be trying a bit too hard at times - as he often does - some of the more surreal scenes. for example, are truly heavy-handed. Hopkins too, great as he is, seems like he's straining to keep the Nixon face and voice on constantly. Overall - it's a flawed but powerful bio-pic. It's a good place to start in order to understand Nixon's unusual life and personality, but it should be accompanied by Frost/Nixon and All The President's Men for a more complete picture.

An absolute epic insight into Richard Nixon's life. This cast was STACKED to the rafters, full of actors I adore, and they all did stellar performances. Fantastic all around, though admittedly at times somewhat difficult to keep up with. Highly recommended for anyone interested on the subject. You'll learn a lot.

True, there were times that I saw Nixon, not Hopkins, up there on the screen. James Woods and Joan Allen are also excellent as Haldemann and Pat Nixon. I am fascinated by Watergate and the acting is great, so why must I ultimately give it a thumbs-down? Oliver Stone just couldn't get out of his own way. 1. He had to theorize (not too convincingly) about what was in the 18 1/2 minute gap. There is enough in the verified historical record to fill six compelling screenplays. 2. He overuses mixed-media. In Natural Born Killers, form and content merged; here I would have preferred a more serene mise-en-scene. Four out of ten.

Despite the usual ruthless fury, Oliver Stone's movie does not do a great service to the task of putting Nixon at the place in history he deserves, i.e. One of the three worst post-war presidents of the US of A (the other two being G. W. Bush and Donald Trump). The real Nixon provided enough damning facts and evidence to make his depiction as a grotesque caricature not only unnecessary but even counterproductive, as it offers the flank to his remaining partisans for undermining the credibility of such reality. On a pure cinematographic level, I can only underline the unfortunate cast choice of Anthony Hopkins, who has neither the look nor the accent to be a credible Nixon.

Stone's Citizen Kane inspired `Nixon' lands somewhere between philippic and oblique calumny. Much like his `JFK' it is dark and interspersed with disturbing images that keep the pace off balance. The problem with such ersatz surrealism is that it grows more and more cloying as the film progresses and obscures any verisimilitude that is established. Stone shines when he takes on petit historie as in `Platoon' and `Born on the Fourth of July', but his takes on the bigger fish are uneven. Let's just hope that future civilizations see Stone as a Herodotus rather than a Thucydides.

I have read many accounts of Richard Nixon's life and by most accounts this movie does not portray the man as he really was. He did have paranoid traits, was a politically devious individual but not anymore than any other politician of his day. In my opinion Richard Nixon was the greatest President the United States has seen and will ever see. He was a very strong individual and very influential. He basically put Eisenhower in the White House and denied other people from getting there. His portrayal in the film was very biased by Stone. Nixon was a great strategist, a loyal and dedicated American. Traits that should have been made. Had Kennedy not been shot and his affairs been publicly known, Kennedy would have been impeached too. Nixon got the U.S. out of Vietnam. Nixon's only err was panicking and trying to protect his loyal followers, which made the whole affair worse and caused him to resign the Presidency. This movie does not do justice to the man.

Aside from "Platoon", Oliver Stone has an annoying tendency to over "Oliver Stone-ize". For example, the freaky camera angles and background effects in "Natural Born Killers" almost made sense since the characters were on drugs most of the time (he certainly could have toned it down a notch or three though). But in "Any Given Sunday" and especially "Nixon" these effects occur far too often and usually for no apparent reason. This adds unnecessary length and confusion to what could have and perhaps would have otherwise been a much better film. I enjoyed both "Any Given Sunday" and "Nixon" for their stories and their actors but didn't rate them as highly as I would have liked because they were so overly Oliver STONED!

Nixon is nothing short of GREAT. Oliver Stone's depiction of President Nixon is astounding, it's as good as JFK. Anthony Hopkins should've won an Oscar for his role. Truly a great film. One of the best of the decade.

"Nixon" is just not an appealing title or appealing figure. I watched out of morbid curiosity, and it is a well done movie, even if it has a run time of three hours and twelve minutes. Nixon, played by Anthony Hopkins, was made up of the stuff that many politicians, CEOs, hedge fund managers, and many successful people. The same quality that drives them to get what they want at all costs is the same quality that makes them go beyond the limits. Obviously, it takes some kind of ego to become president, and some have bigger egos than others. Nixon's ego and his insecurities were monstrous. It was eerie how much he despised JFK, who'd been long gone when he was in office. Kind of reminds me of a guy acting as president now.