All the President's Men

Rating:
Summary: Gripping
Review: _All the President's Men_ is the story of how two reporters, Woodward and Bernstein of the Washington Post, uncovered the Watergate Scandal. I was not alive during this time, so I did not witness anything that actually happened, but I certainly gained a better understanding of it from this movie. Hoffman and Redford are brilliant (not to mention dead sexy) as the two earnest, tenacious reporters. The supporting cast is wonderful, too. Some people have said there is little or no suspense in this movie, but I think they must be off their rockers. I was so tense watching this movie, wondering what would happen next, if their lead would pan out, or if they would have to start all over. There is a minimum of background music, which just adds to the over-all atmosphere. Maybe the movie isn't suspenseful in the same way as a normal mystery or thriller would be, but it's still intense, still nail-bitingly gripping. I think everyone should see this movie.

Rating:
Summary: A Movie For Our Time!
Review: I saw this movie again recently for the first time since its release in 1976. It should be required viewing for politicians who are now residing in Washington as well as reporters for big-city newspapers if you believe that those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. As everyone knows unless he or she is from Mars, this movie is about the great book ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, two young Washington Post reporters. Theses fiesty, courageous men through their hammering away at the Watergate scandal with their relentless stories played a major role in the fall of one Richard Nixon.

Robert Redford as Woodward and Dustin Hoffman as Berstein are superb with Hoffman only occasionally playing himself. Jason Robards makes an excellent Ben Bradlee, editor of the Washington Post. The movie looks and feels like a documentary. There are great shots of Washington. Actual footage from current political events are juxtaposed with other scenes from the film. The movie ends with a closeup of a TV screen with Nixon's being sworn in to a second term. You see Berstein and Woodward in the background furiously typing away. Then there are closeups of headlines being typed on electric typewriters of all the president's men and what happened to them. Then we see the finale: that Richard Nixon resigns as president. A great ending.

As I watched this movie, it occurred to me that Nixon might not have been brought down were it not for the courage of a few good people, including "Deep Throat." We can only hope that there are still honest people in both government and the media who believe that it is important to tell the truth regardless of the consequences.

Rating:
Summary: W/o special fx, violence/drugs you can make a thriller!
Review: This movie should be required viewing for today's dollars-inspired movie directors, who seem to think that the only way to make an engaging movie is to flood the viewer with a large arsenal of weapons, explosions, special effects, bloodbaths, gore, serial killers, decapitations, smutty sex and the ever present drugs, gangs, and traffickers.

ATPM is a long but ENGAGING movie, that portrays very well two common guys doing their daily (sometimes boring) job, and in the process trying to "stick it up to the man" and bring down the house of cards that the Nixon administration created themselves.

I really enjoyed it.

Rating:
Summary: Classic film deserves much better DVD package
Review: "I have a wife and a family and a dog and a cat."

The four stars would be five - but a star has been lopped off for such poor presentation on the DVD - "All The President's Men" deserves a five star DVD, such as with "Thirteen Days", even moreso than the usual action picture blow-em-up epic!

I agree with previous reviewers: this film's classic status is partly due to its worth as a historical and investigative "document". Well-written, well-paced, with lots of great cameos by notable actors beginning their careers (Stephen Collins, Meredith Baxter, F. Murray Abraham, Jane Alexander, even Lindsay Crouse). Probably the finest film Robert Redford ever did as an actor.
Yet most people who were of age during Watergate have already seen this movie and have a broader, deeper understanding of the time in which it was made. Viewers like me, who were born after Watergate, may initially find the story a little cold and hard to follow. Simply, we don't have the same emotional stakes here, only experiencing the disappointment and shock of Watergate's "long national nightmare" secondhand through our parents or possibly through history textbooks. Similarly, a child born in the mid-1980s will probably not feel the same outrage over Morton Thiokol's O-ring scandal as a Gen-Xer, who likely watched the space shuttle Challenger explosion from a seat in their classroom.
In short, if you're in your early thirties or younger, you'll probably enjoy the film much more if you read the book by "Woodstein" (Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward's joint nickname) first, and study the Watergate years more - otherwise, the ending in particular will seem anticlimatic instead of chilling. The book is also a much better companion to this film than the DVD extra, which are a cobbling together of vague text - even a online encyclopedia will provide you with more information. Worse, the "suggested features" option refers to "Mars Attacks" as a movie with "political intrigue"!

Rating:
Summary: The Compelling Drama of Journalistic Integrity
Review: Based on a book with the same title co-authored by Bernstein and Woodward and directed by Alan J. Pakula, this film focuses on two unlikely partners employed by the Washington Post whose investigative journalism eventually helped to reveal the nature and extent of President Nixon's involvement with a break-in at the national headquarters of the Democratic Party in 1972. It is indeed a credit to the collective talents of the film's director, cast, and crew that the film retains its dramatic edge throughout, given the fact that the break-in occurred years before. Those who saw the film when it was first released already knew a great deal about the burglars and subsequent efforts to cover up complicity "at the very highest levels of government." When seeing this film again recently, I was impressed by how compelling its narrative remains. Also, I was more aware than I had been before of the subtle humor which enlivens several of the conversations, especially between Bernstein (Hoffman) and Woodward (Redford). When the film begins, Bernstein and Woodward are relatively inexperienced reporters who (literally) stumble upon one of the most important political news stories of the 20th century. Their first challenge is to convince the Post's executive editor Ben Bradlee (Robards) and other senior executives that the story is worth pursuing. Then as their investigation lags, meanwhile enraging the Republican administration, Bernstein and Woodward fear that they will be pulled from the story. They desperately need a break. And then....

All of the performances are rock-solid. Robards was nominated for, received, and deserved an Academy Award for best supporting actor. William Goldman also received an Academy Award for his adaptation of Bernstein and Woodward's book. Of special interest to me, then and now, is the direct access the film permits to the daily operations of a major newspaper. In many respects, journalists such as Bernstein and Woodward share much in common with police detectives as they generate and evaluate leads, pursue those most promising, conduct interviews, assemble evidence, etc. It is exceptionally hard work, often boring and even frustrating. Jane Alexander provides one of the strongest performances as a bookkeeper who enables Bernstein and Woodward to "follow the money," both to those who received it and those who provided it. With regard to Deep Throat, his/her/their identity is known only to Bernstein and Woodward...and perhaps to a few others. For the purposes of the film, Hal Holbrook plays that role (as always) with appropriate style and grace.

In years to come, I think this film will continue to be enjoyed and appreciated less for the entertainment it provides and more for its value as a dramatic commentary on events but also on non-events. Yes, Bernstein and Woodward's efforts eventually led to the arrest, conviction, and imprisonment of several of the President's men...and then to the reluctant resignation of the President himself. But what if the Washington Post and other major news media organizations had lost interest in the Watergate break-in? What if Nixon and his administration continued? Of course, we will never know.

Rating:
Summary: This movie is soooooooo cooooool!
Review: After five men are arrested for breaking into the Watergate complex, two reporters, Bob Woodward (Redford) and Carl Bernstein (Hoffman), set out to find the truth of the Watergate Scandal.

This movie was awesome! It's cool to learn about the Watergate Scandal and how desperate some reporters are to get the whole story. It was a little confusing, though, because I wasn't exactly sure what the whole scandal was about. In the movie it tells what it's about but it's hard to pick out all the details because all the details are projected by talking. The Watergate Scandal is so complex that it would be better shown on paper, where you can look back and check up on stuff easier.

Rating:
Summary: The Watergate scandal from the reporters' perspective
Review: This dramatization of how it was discovered that the burglary of the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D. C. was funded and directed by the Nixon White House is a lot better than it has any right to be. Given the tedious, non-glamorous and frankly boring leg- and phone-work that is often the lot of the investigative reporter, it is surprising that this is a very interesting movie even if you don't care two beans about the Watergate scandal. In fact, this is really more about how the story was put together than it is about the scandal itself. It is also a lot less political than might be expected.

It stars Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman as Washington Post reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, and they are good, with excellent support from Jason Robards (Oscar as Best Supporting Actor) playing Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee, and Jane Alexander as an innocent caught up in the machinations. But what makes the movie work is the Oscar-winning script adapted from the Woodward and Bernstein best seller by that old Hollywood pro, William Goldman (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid 1969, Misery 1990, etc.). What he does so very well, even though we know the outcome, is to establish and maintain the tension as Woodward and Bernstein run all over town chasing leads and misdirections. He accomplishes this by putting just enough varied obstacles in the path of our intrepid reporters, notably the Washington bureaucracy and the understandably cautious senior editors at the Post.

The direction by Alan J. Pakula (Comes a Horseman 1978, Sophie's Choice 1982, etc.) focuses the scenes nicely, keeps the camera where it belongs, and highlights the story with a shadowy Deep Throat (Hal Holbrook), skitterish sources, and a vivid recreation of a top American newspaper at work. I was especially enthralled to see the interactions among the reporters, the editors and the sources. I thought they all looked and sounded authentic, Redford's good looks having nothing to do with the story, which was right, and Hoffman's flair for the intense reigned in, which was necessary. The diffidence of Alexander's character and the soft pushiness of Woodward and Bernstein were tempered just right. Bradlee's stewardship of the story and his ability to take a calculated risk seemed true to life.

Some details that stood out: Redford's hunt and peck typing contrasted with Hoffman's all fingers flying; the talking heads on the strategically placed TVs, reacting (via actual video footage) to the developing story--deny, deny, deny! of course. The thin reporter's spiral notebooks being pulled out and then later flipped through to find a quote. The bright lights of the newsroom looking expansive with all those desks as though there were mirrors on the walls extending an illusion. The seemingly silly tricks to get a source to confirm: just nod your head; I'll count to ten and if you're still on the line... And you know what I liked best? No annoying subplot!

The rather abrupt resolution with the teletype banging out the leads to a sequence of stories that led to President Nixon's resignation had just the right feel to it, especially for those of us who have actually experienced the goosepimply sensation that comes with watching a breaking story come in over the teletype. The quick wrap-up surprised me, but delighted me at the same time.

Bottom line: an excellent movie that wears well, a fine example of some of Hollywood's top professionals at work some thirty years ago. #30

Rating:
Summary: Who is the secret informer, Deep Throat? Will we know soon?
Review: This film is the high profile true story of two Washington Post newspaper reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, trying to get the story of the decade in regards to the President of the United States, Richard Nixon, the Democratic Committee Headquarters break-in, secret slush fund and what led up to the president's resignation. But the highlight of this dramatic, powerful film is the secret informer, "Deep Throat", who had confidential information that Bob Woodward needed and to have confirmed. Bob Woodward and the secret informer would meet in a secret location. Nobody knows who the secret informer is except for Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein and the informer itself. Woodward and Bernstein have never revealed their source and have kept it a secret for over 30 years. It was once said that when "Deep Throat" dies, then it can be revealed by Woodward who the secret informer was. If Woodward or Bernstein should die first, the other may reveal the secret, but only after D.T. dies. If both B.W. and C.B should pass away first, we may never know who "Deep Throat" was. Talk show host Larry King interviewed one of the former reporters recently and I thought it was in bad taste for King to pressure the reporter into who the secret informer was , even by mentioning names and initials. Still the former reporter did not reveal his source. I have respect for both Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Could "Deep Throat" be George McGovern, Patrick Buchanan, Gerald Ford, Henry Kissinger or Alexander Haig? Or was it a high profile woman of the time, such as Presidential Journalist, Helen Thomas? (well, I am really being silly now) Perhaps "the secret informer" will be revealed soon, but not in this film. Keep watching and reading the news! Cast includes, Robert Redford, Dustin Hoffman, Jack Warden, Martin Balsam, Nicolas Coster, Jason Robards Jr, Hal Holbrook, Polly Holliday, Ned Beatty, Lindsay Crouse, Valerie Curtin, Jane Alexander, Meredith Baxter, Stephen Collins, Robert Walden and James Karen. Frank Willis plays himself. All tv footage is the real thing expect for Stephen Collins as "Sloan".

Rating:
Summary: an engrossing thriller based on fact
Review: Between this film and The Parallax View, director Alan J. Pakula made two of the best thrillers of the '70s... even of all-time. While The Parallax View ratchets up the paranoia quite a few notches, All The President's Men is very much rooted in reality.

One of things that is so good about the film is that it shows the great amount of legwork that Woodward and Bernstein had to do -- the endless number of phone calls that went no where, the people who were afraid to tell them anything and the resistance from the editors of the paper. The film really goes to great lengths to show the fascinating nuts 'n' bolts of reporting for a large newspaper.

Pakula's direction is straightforward and devoid of unnecessary flash. He knows how to tell a story and tell it well. It is an important film, one that has cast a long shadow -- there would be no Traffic or The Insider without All The President's Men.

The DVD is a bit of let down. No anamorphic transfer, only adequate sound and little to no extras -- just some production notes. Where's the audio commentary with Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford? Or howabout a retrospective documentary? It's about time.

Rating:
Summary: Educational movie
Review: David Rahimian
All the President's Men film review

The movie All the President's Men is extremely difficult to criticize as a portrayal of the journalistic efforts that were required to uncover President Nixon's involvement in the Watergate scandal, and more generally, his violation of a multitude of statutes, including his 'aiding and abetting criminal acts,' 'conspiracy to defraud the United States,' 'fraud and false statements,' and 'wiretapping.' As a student in a high school U.S. History class, the facts are important.
Alan Pakula directed this film with the intention of being accurate. For example, the Washington Post newsroom was created to look as much like the actual newsroom as possible without compromising sound quality. (The movie was created without the modern benefits of computer editing.) This accuracy is possible in large part because Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman consulted with Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the actual reporters.

Speaking of the actors, Redford and Hoffman deliver an incredibly smooth performance, which makes the viewer feel as if they were the actual reporters. For a student seeking to take in historical facts and ideas, this might as well be true; their historical accuracy and portrayal of the efforts put into the journalistic exposé makes their performance almost completely true-to-life. The movie strictly follows Woodward and Bernstein's book, All the President's Men, from which it takes its name. The only difference is that the movie does not go into the judicial investigation, something that the book does.

All the President's Men was released in 1976, when Nixon's resignation was fresh in the nation's memory. Therefore, in many cases, it assumes that the viewer is well acquainted with the names and events associated with the scandal. For a first time viewer, this may cause confusion. Therefore, it is necessary to have some knowledge of the Watergate scandal to fully understand what occurs in the film. An example of this is the frequent references to Don Segretti. To fully understand these references, the viewer should be familiar with the 'Dirty Tricks Case.' This has to do with a committee chaired by Segretti falsely charging Nixon's Democratic rivals Humphrey and Jackson of sexual misconduct during the primaries.

Although the film can definitely be called educational, it is also entertaining and funny. One point that Pakula capitalized on for humor was the responses of various politicians to Woodward's questioning. (The actual reporters Woodward and Bernstein verified all quotes.) :

Bob Woodward: How do you think your check got into the bank account of a Watergate burglar?
Kenneth H. Dahlberg: I'm, uh, a proper citizen. What I do is proper.
Bob Woodward: Well, I-- I understand.
Kenneth H. Dahlberg: I've just been through a terrible ordeal. My neighbor's wife has been kidnapped!

Or...

Clark MacGregor: I don't know. You're implying that I should know. If you print that, our relationship will be terminated.
Bob Woodward: Sir, we don't have a relationship!

These humorous sections, along with the interesting (though obviously predictable) plot, make the film just as entertaining as any other film.

The reason that the film is so interesting and important is the importance of the event that it recounts. The Watergate Scandal shocked the public, to the point that now, over thirty years later, 'Watergate' is still a household word. Nixon "destroyed the myth that binds America together, and for this he was driven from power." This myth was the untouchable, almost omnipotent status of anyone holding the office of the President of the United States. The film shows the success of two little-known reporters bringing down the whole of the myth, and emphasizes how large and widespread the myth is. (An example of this is the shot of the U.S. Library, where the camera slowly moves up, revealing how large of a force the reporters are attempting to fight.)

Some reviews have been very critical of the movie for overemphasizing the importance of the Washington Post in the investigation, or claiming that the Post made false claims and only made things worse for the legitimate investigators. This is unreasonable. As with any other historical event, there are multiple viewpoints. The film took the viewpoint most widely believed by both the general public and Watergate historians.

All in all, the film is an accurate and educational portrayal of the journalism required to expose the multiple violations of statutes committed by President Nixon and his C.R.P. Committee. It's acting is brilliant, and it is entertaining and at times humorous while documenting the events of a very important event in United States History. Watch it if you are into politics, studying Watergate, or just want to see an interesting movie about an important event. It will be well worth your time.

...