Nixon (1995)

Best movie of this year hands down!

Simply Perfect

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.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Oliver Stone presents Nixon in a positive, sympathetic light. Nixon is seen as the conditioned victim of his family circumstances and rigorous upbringing. Behind all his actions as a grown man, you are encouraged to see a hurt and bewildered small boy. In spite of this, he personifies dogged determination.Oliver Stone's judgement was seriously inspired when he cast Nixon. If I thought long and hard, I could probably not come up with a better choice than Anthony Hopkins, one of the greatest actors of this age. Richard Nixon and Anthony Hopkins share an approximate similarity of appearance, but where Hopkins scores is in his mastery of articulation and verbal timing. Not long into the movie Hopkins acquires the persona of Nixon, without specifically imitating him.Anthony Hopkins was so good, I watched the film several times. I believe Stone rejected a motley group of several other contenders for the role, before wisely settling on Hopkins as his ideal. He must have been exceptionally pleased with the result.Stone includes memories from Nixon's childhood up through and past the Watergate scandal. Clearly, numerous film actors wanted to be in this movie, for obvious reasons. It's an outstanding production, and anyone who watches it will be given an unusually fine history lesson. It stays in the mind. I strongly recommend it: give it a close watch ! It's a bit long, so I dock one star.

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.

I still am perplexed by this roller-coaster of a movie - three hours of very weird montage, sudden jumps, crazy color schemes, abrupt flashbacks and very heavy moments made me quite amazed. I am not an Olver Stone fan and I am more on Steven Spielberg's side, but then, I really wanted to see a Nixon movie. Richard M. Nixon was and still sadly is a traduced, maligned and ill-depicted man but he was a real man, driven and deep, full of demons (who isn't?) and really decent in many (but not all) ways. Anthony Hopkins did a great job here, maybe, too far sometimes. I saw many footages with real Nixon and he was not that caricature as Hopkins depicted him. And come on, was he really that much into drinking? The sources are highly controversial in there. Anyway, that was very compelling and mind-provoking to see that monster of a film and realize how multi-faceted and difficult Nixon was, and all who were near him. The brilliant cast of drama heavies (Woods, Sorvino, Allen, Hoskins, Harris) did a decent job, true. But one serious claim remains - the life of this great man was so large and busy that even 3 hours were not enough. Must have been a serial or several films. There are some more complaints about the movie - no Chuck Colson, no deeper plot with Ed Harris, not enough on McCarthy - but still, the film is not bad. Albeit, too harsh on a real great man

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.