Rating: 
Summary: How can this be?
Review: Hey folks, I love "Die Hard" just like the rest of you. But, this movie manages to keep you on the edge of your seat just the same without the blood and guns and car chases. Movies do not get any more exciting than this. Whenever a friend wants my opinion on a great adventure movie, I tell 'em about this one. And what makes it even more compelling...........it really happened. A great companion to, "Dick".
Rating:
Summary: A perfect film.
Review: This is a masterpiece of a film. Wow! As a future history teacher, this is a film that I will show in my classroom over and over, because it shows what happened without dramatizing it. The story is dramatic enough, without any extra drama. It's a testament to everyone involved in All the President's Men that this film is one of a kind, and one in a million. Redford and Hoffman are superb in their roles. Too bad this film didn't win more Oscars.
Rating:
Summary: A truly great film, both about politics and journalism.
Review: Perfect acting by everybody from Redford/Hoffman down to even the minute players, a tightly woven script, exciting direction (R.I.P. Alan J. Pakula) and brooding cinematography (courtesy of Gordon Willis, who photographed The Godfather) combine to make this a deserved classic. Without any real moment of violence, and scarcely any profanity, All the President's Men manages to achieve grit beyond any of the smart-aleck, foul-mouthed indie thrillers of the late '90s that took their cue from Pulp Fiction. Proof enough that nothing beats a good script and compelling characters, put into the hands of pros (both above and below the line) at the height of their power. An ever-present sense of imminent danger and perfectly timed moments of humour add the icing on the cake. Filmmaking par excellence.
Rating: 
Summary: Talk, talk, talk, talk.... Oh Look! They're talking again!
Review: I am not old enough to have even been alive when the Watergateincident occured. As a project for school, I was forced to watch Allthe President's Men, as we are studying the '70s. I found that it was the most boring movie I have ever seen. The entire movie was spent watching Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman talk to each other, talk on the phone, and talk to people. They threw out so many names that my head was spinning. I found myself just wishing for the movie to end. The highlights of the movie, in my opinion, were the one guy's afro, and the incredibly outdated technology. The movie had only one joke in it, which was funny, but the rest of the movie just dragged on and on. I found that I could not get engrossed in the movie. It was everything I could do just to keep my eyes open. When it was over, everyone was wondering the same thing: did all the movies suck so badly that THIS was the best they could come up with? How else could it have won so many awards? Maybe I am not a fan of journalism movies. If you're really interested in the Watergate scandal, if you like watching people be arrogent, nosey, snobs, or if you want a movie that'll put you to sleep within minutes, then I'd suggest watching this movie. Otherwise, read the following, and then see a better movie: There was a big scandal in Washington. Two reports linked people from all levels of the government to the break in, until they linked the president. (Actually, they don't mention the president as being connected.) The president resigns. End of story. Now you have just saved yourself 2 or more hours. The only thing you've missed is a lot of boring talk. If you really like to listen to that much talking, I'll write the word 'talk' 800 times, and you can read it. Otherwise, take my advice, and don't even bother with this movie. On a scale of 1-10, I would rate this movie -8. It was SO horrible! I'd rather watch Barney, or the Teletubbies for an hour than watch this again!
Rating:
Summary: grabs your attention, makes you think about politics
Review: To the outsider, Washington DC may be the jewel of American cities -- our center of truth, justice, and the American way. Of course, we've learned over the decades since this film was made just how little truth comes out of DC, how little justice there is in the US, and that the American way has probably evolved into consumerism, violence and myriad hatreds. This film was made during more innocent times, when a President abusing his power was shocking and immoral, unable to be tolerated. It is about the traditional philosophy and mission of journalism -- to expose the truth and inform the people. The content of the film, when you watch it, is going to contrast sharply with our media today. Redford and Hoffman give strong performances as two somewhat quirkly characters, very human, with the ambition to serve journalism according to the ideals of the time. The controlled intensity of Redford's performance plays well against Hoffman's conniving style, as both team up to investigate one of the biggest stories of modern US history. This is no dramatized film either, although I didn't read the book on which it is based so I cannot say if the story wasn't altered to suit Hollywood. However, the style of the film borders on being a documentary. There are no extraneous scenes, no frivolous characters, and every actor in this film is so professional and talented that you do know that you are witnessing real life rather than watching a fictional, sensational story. The cinematography, mainly taking place in the news office, is creative. Whether or not you agree with the outcome of Nixon's presidency, this film is exciting, with a sort of non-stop build up to an energetic level of suspense. You know the ending, so the film instead relies on showing you the people involved and the effects on all their lives. There aren't any scenes in what we expect to be the true seats of power -- the great halls of politics in DC. Rather the action centers around the newsroom and in the places where people really live, their homes. When I saw this film in the theatre way-back-when, or even watching it now on video, the only problem I have with it is that it ends abruptly. I don't know if that was due to a limited budget or if the producers/directors/writer/actors/somebody felt that the gist of the story had been told. This type of film should not be forgotten -- a responsible film that exposes the underlying dangers of investing power in potentially corrupt or unethical men.
Rating:
Summary: Director Pakula's best film! Accurate attention to detail.
Review: This is truly one of the all time great journalism films ever made. Not only is it an accurate depiction of the events that led up to the resignation of a U.S. president, it's a great story that keeps the viewers involved from start to finish. I saw the film several times in the theater when it was released in 1976, and after more than 20 years, the movie still holds up on video - as excellent cinema and as an inside view of one important era of American history.The attention to detail in this film is amazing. The Washington Post newsroom was recreated as exactly as possible on a soundstage. The process of tracking down leads, interviewing sources and getting the story was portrayed extremely well. While some names have been changed in the film, it accurately represents the original book by the two Post reporters. Redford and Hoffman spent time studying their roles with reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Having read nearly every Watergate book published in the 70s, I felt that the portrayal of every key character in the film was as close to reality as film could be. The casting of this film was perfect. In addition to the performances by Redford and Hoffman, outstanding performances are made by Jason Robards as Post editor Ben Bradlee, Jack Warden as Harry Rosenfeld, Martin Balsam as Howard Simons and Jane Alexander as the bookkeeper. Hal Holbrook keeps the mystery alive surrounding the anonymous source known as Deep Throat. While the significance of the body of work of the late director Alan Pakula is tremendous, All the President's Men can easily be classified as his finest film.
Rating: 
Summary: It's better now than it was then
Review: The beauty of this film is it is a better watch today than it was in the 70's. Remember that this movie was made only a couple of years after the events it chronicled. My favourite moments were those that obviously inspired the X-Files television series, and the wonderful depiction of a 70's newsroom with its scruffy reporters (or at least its attempts to make pretty-boy Robert Redford look scruffy) and incessant clickety-clack of a multitude of typewriters. Those not familiar with the Watergate players (as I was not) may get lost in the names, but fortunately you don't have to understand it all to appreciate what a great film this is. I missed a lot the first time, and I'll probably miss a lot the next time, but it'll be worth watching again and again. It ranks up there with The Russia House as a political thriller, but is even more engrossing because it is true! The DVD picture and sound was crisp, but any sort of extra would have been nice. Who can figure out Warner Bros? Some of their DVDs are excellent (Contact, L.A. Confidential), but this one is bare-bones. Still, it is priced to own.
Rating:
Summary: Compelling and memorable
Review: Along with The Front Page (the version starring Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau), this is one of the two best movies ever made about the world of journalism. The atmosphere of the Washington Post's editorial conferences, and the slightly sleazy quality of Dustin Hoffman's foot-in-the-door reporter, are superbly captured. This movie never puts a foot wrong - unlike Tricky Dicky.
Rating:
Summary: One of the great journalism movies of all time.
Review: Everything you always wanted to know about Watergate, but were afraid to ask. This movie shows the journalism work behind a great story - a dreadfully true story. Monicagaters, take a long look at this story and you'll see what a real threat a president can be to our country. Though this movie only points out Nixon's involvement in the cover-up, his men were guilty of spying on political opponents, those who disagreed with Nixon or pissed him off. It's well documented that Nixon also spied on journalists who wrote unfavorably about him. Nixon exemplified what we should never have in our highest office. And this movie tells the story in a very easy to understand manner. The sad story of the fall of one of my most admired presidents. Do I contradict? I don't think so. Hoffman and Redford are perfect for the roles of Bernstein and Woodward, as is Robards as Ben Bradley in his Oscar winning performance. If this movie doesn't scare the hell out of you as to what our government officials are capable of, nothing will, because it's TRUE!
Rating:
Summary: Complex, Yet Fascinating
Review: Fascinating account of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the two reporters who unraveled Watergate. The acting is top-notch (but how could it not be, with Dustin Hoffman?). The story is complex and leaves you thinking. A favorite. One qualm, though -- the movie had 9 'f' words and was rated PG? Nonetheless, a great film.
|
