All the President's Men

Rating:
Summary: All the President's crooks.
Review: Nixon being the biggest one of all, natch. *All the President's Men* is cinema's Last Word on the capacity for heroism in journalism. It also has a few words to say about paranoia in high places, dirty political tricks, and the end of TWO eras: the Cold Warrior era and the Innocent-Hippie era. The movie's foreground -- indeed, the foreground for the whole Watergate scandal -- is the fully conscious, concerted effort by a sociopathic Right Wing in this country to reverse the social changes of the 1960's. I know that's an overlarge hypothesis, but it seems true nonetheless. (Guys like Haldeman and Liddy would've fit just fine in the 1930's FBI, as old-fashioned G-Men.) Pitted against this "vast Right Wing conspiracy" are 2 reporters from the Washington Post: Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Fortunately for them, the demented men in the Nixon cabal were, as Deep Throat intimates to Woodward, "not very bright guys who let things get out of hand". Everyone knows how the injurious Watergate scandal ended, but some viewers might be unhappy that the movie doesn't tell the WHOLE story. Indeed, the fates of Nixon and his henchman are relegated to terse one-sentence summaries via teletype at the very end of the film. But what the film lacks by way of detective story, i.e., "whodunit", is more than made up for by its presentation of HOW they dunit. Robert Redford, co-producing as well as starring as Woodward, along with writer William Goldman and director Alan Pakula, are in fact interested in little else than the "how's": the tacky tricks of CREEP, involving burglary, scandal-mongering, and wiretapping, are juxtaposed against "Woodstein"'s day-by-day fact-gathering, knocking on doors, endless phone calls, and incessantly looking for sources and "getting confirmation". (The offices of the Post, glaringly revealed by flourescent bulbs, is also contrasted with the shadowy parking lots, badly lit office hallways, and all-around dingy photography away from the Post.) It turns out that the "how's" have more than enough cinematic value. Redford's insistence on eschewing "dramatic license" for sticking exactly to the book on which this film is based is one of the rare, rare, rare examples of absolute integrity in a Hollywood production . . . bravo. [A resounding raspberry goes to Warner Brothers' DVD presentation. The print is the same from the VHS version. It looks bad, and sounds even worse. I hate Warner Bros. -- every single DVD from them I've seen just stinks. Criterion! . . . help?]

Rating:
Summary: good film
Review: This film takes us into the inner (and illegal) dealings those in power do. it shows why we need to make sure our government is in check. Richard Nixon tried to undermine and undercut democracy. he would have gotten away with it were it not for those pesky reporters. the film shows deftly how difficult it was for them to get any kind of evidence to prove something wrong happened.

i dont know about anyone else, but i'm seeing that kind of difficulty these days with our Bush administration. they too are keeping many secrets from the public, and more importantly, from Congress. this film serves as a reminder that we need to keep our government in check.

Robert Redford went on to be in another film dealing with politics. the main line of that 1993 film "Sneakers," is "too many secrets."

Rating:
Summary: Hoffman, Redford, and Robards are great
Review: This movie is great. It is probably one of the best adaptions that could have been made considering all the legal ramifications if made wrong (according to Redford's written interview on the DVD). The reason for this review is to say that I prefer the VHS because at the beginning of the VHS, there is an interview with Woodward and Bernstein which is really great. The DVD lacks this interview.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent newsroom drama is no substitute for experience
Review: When the Washington Post first broke the Watergate story in 1972, the rest of the American press were chuckling in disbelief. Two years after, they were rooting and cheering the Post for its dilligence and courage in the face of such a preimminent goliath--the U.S government and more specifically, the 37th President, Richard M. Nixon.

Captured on film three years after reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward won a 1973 Pulitzer Prize for the Post for their reporting of the Watergate scandal, this is one of the films that made journalism look so good to so many younger generations. If it's not the thrill of possibly risking your live and career to hold the government accountable, it's the fame of catching such huge figures with their pants down that attracts younger generations of journalists to awe at this story. While on the one hand, Watergate showed that indeed the press CAN fulfill its duty as a public watchdog in a meaningful way, it opened the door to that journalistic ill known as "gotcha journalism."

As a movie version of a bestselling book, 'All The President's Men' has a lot of the details cut out of it. While Woodward and Bernstein's actual investigation took them years, it's accomplished in the film in an hour or so. I guess that had to happen in order to keep the audience awake, because if Pakula and Redford had shown the investigation as it ACTUALLY happened, the audience would fall asleep becuase real-life investigative journalism is time-consuming, arduous and even booring in some cases. But while that might be true, there's merit, I think, in showing JUST what a job reporting Watergate was for the five reporters (Yes, FIVE, not just TWO) that worked on that story. If Pakula and Redford had shown more of the nitty-gritty, then would we see as many fame-seekers in modern journalism as we do now? Debate that all you like; I'm not going to waste your time going into depth on it.

While the film version of 'All The President's Men' DOES oversimplify and overstate, it still shows, I think what challenges a working newsroom works under and just how uncertain tracking down a big story can be--it can make or break you. Whether a reporter's on deadline or not, there's always pressure from outside interests and added stress of overly-cautious editors to help in either motivating you to dig harder and deeper or to pack it in and quit. Obviously, few at the Post in the 70s were in favor of doing the latter, and it paid off in generous sums. In showing the persistence (a KEY attribute of a sucessful journalist) and courage (yet again...)required to bring down the president, 'All The President's Men' presents the human side to the press. A VHS copy of this film sits on my bookshelf for these exact reasons.

However, if you think that this is a complete textbook on how to write an investigative piece, you're wrong, as a Hollywood movie is NO substitute whatsoever for years of hard work and experience.

But if you're ever curious about what a typical day in a newsroom is like, either rent or buy 'All The President's Men.'

Rating:
Summary: Good movie - good detail.
Review: While this movie is about Watergate, what really gives it strength is its portrayal of life in a newsroom.

Here is where the news is made, here is where it is decided what we read and what we don't.

All in all, it was a very good movie meant for historians, conspiracy theorists and budding journalists alike!!!

Rating:
Summary: Is There Anywhere You Don't Smoke?
Review: A great movie, but tough for anyone familiar with the book it came from, or the actual events both were base on, to watch because it skims over huge hunks of material.

Still, it is a mostly accurate portrayal of the events that brought Nixon's reign to an end and really put the Post on the journalistic map.

Rating:
Summary: Piece of history
Review: Now this movie is out in DVD, I can throw my well-used VHS tape away. This is my most used video in my film library. Never get tired of watching it. Hoffman and Redford are brilliant in their portrayals of Woodward and Bernstein. Even my teenagers school borrowed my movie to show the children how the downfall of Nixon came about. An entertaining movie but also an educational piece for the younger generation who only read about Watergate in their history books.

Rating:
Summary: Just follow the money
Review: Any verbal superlatives would not really do all the justice to this incredible 1976 docudrama.

The Watergate scandal was perhaps the single most destructive political scandal of modern times--especially since it swallowed whole an American president. What had begun as a lousy third-rate burglary on the Democratic National Headquarters in the early morning hours of June 17, 1972 slowly but surely escalated into a monster.

Initially, however, the only reporters on the story from the top were reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward of the Washington Post. But their intense digging, throughout a whole host of frustrations and even threats, revealed a White House rotted by paranoia. Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford are superb as the team that their bosses (including Oscar winner Jason Robards) refer to as "Woodstein." The experiences were documented in the pair's book "All The President's Men", which became one of the touchstone movies of the 1970s.

Not since IN COLD BLOOD and THE BOSTON STRANGLER in 1967-68 had Hollywood produced a based-on-a-true-story with this much power--and it was all quite fresh in America's mindset in 1976. It was thought that America wouldn't sit still for a film about a scandal that had ended with Richard Nixon's resignation only twenty months before. But the collective wisdom turned out to be wrong--to the tune of $40 million at the box office and, besides Robards, Oscars for Adapted Screenplay and Production Design.

Superbly directed by Alan J. Pakula, and featuring excellent turns by Jack Warden, Martin Balsam, and Hal Holbrook (the latter superb as Deep Throat, the informant who tells Redford, "Just follow the money"), ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN is essential viewing for those wanting to get a closer look at the biggest political scandal on Earth.

NOTE: "Woodstein"'s follow-up book "The Final Days" made for an equally fine 1989 made-for-TV movie, and is also well worth looking for.

Rating:
Summary: Entertaining and Informative
Review: As a person born in 1979, years after the Watergate scandal subsided, I had no idea how absolutely huge the discoveries that Woodward and Bernstein made were and how much was at stake at the time. Then AMC ran "All the President's Men" and I sat down with my parents to watch it. VERY suspenseful, masterfully so, in fact, and it kept me at the edge of my seat. More importantly, it opened my eyes to the wide scope of the scandal and how so many powerful people in the supposed "land of the free" could be so easily corrupted.

After watching the movie once, I went and got the book by "Woodstein" that the movie was based upon. It was very surprising to me to find that the movie was so faithful to the book, particularly because so few movies based on books are that way. What's even more surprising, though, is how the screenwriters turned the journalistic prose of the tome into an epic story that is easily accessible at the same time as it's intelligent and well thought out.

I have seen the movie several more times on AMC (God bless 'em). Every time I see it, it quickens my pulses and drags me in. The masterstroke of the movie IMO really should be the ending -- those words on the wire machines that indicate how the devious power players ended up with their own poetic justice offer a quiet (and quieting) ending, but it never fails to bring those who love the truth into a celebratory mood.

Everyone should watch this movie and read the book it's based on. It should be required of all American history students to at least watch the movie. This is one of those rare movies that entertains while it informs. My two thumbs are way up on this one.

Rating:
Summary: Riveting! Attention to Detail is Superb!
Review: As the author of "Strike Hard" (ISBN: 158851322X), I have always loved this movie as the epitomy of conspiracies. Director Pakula tells the story of the fall of the Nixon administration with horrifying accuracy and realism. many people still to this day don't realise the extent to which the Constitution was warped, broken, smashed, and trod upon by these people.

The performers in this movie were exemplary. Redford and Hoffman fully captured the essence of Woodward and Bernstein. However, much goes out to the others as well. Jason Robards gave a spectacular performance as the Washington Post's Ben Bradlee, which in my opinion was the best work of his career. Jack Warden and Martin Balsam were totally convincing in their roles as Harry Rosenfeld and Howard Simons respectively. These three really gave you the feeling that they WERE the management of the Post, which added so much to the realism of the film.

There is so much more to say about this film that space won't allow. As the age of conspiracy theories grows, we look to this movie. It set the precedent for which any and all conspiracy movies should contrive, and set the bar for excellence. The intrigue, suspense, and sheer realistic qualities of this movie were appalling to me as an American Citizen. It exemplifies the qualities of investigative journalism that has slowly deteriorated from our society, and is much needed if we are to keep a handle on our government.