Historical accuracy: 10
Acting: 9 Camera work: 8 Editing: 8 Budget: 7 Story: 7 Theme: 7 Pure entertainment factor: 6 Video quality: 6 Special effects: NA Pacing: 5 Suspension of disbelief: 10 Non-cringe factor: 9 Lack of flashbacks: 10
As seen by the ratings this is a quality product written by the 2 journalists who uncovered the Watergate story as seen in one of the best movies ever made, All the President's Men (1976). This is also 10 times better than the god awful Nixon (1995) movie. This is as historically accurate as a movie can be. Even small scenes carefully reconstruct what one assumes happened. I just watched White House Plumbers (2023) and the 1994 BBC documentary. Both are amazing and highly recommended. So fun to watch. White House Plumbers (2023) is basically as good as you can make the story. Fun from start till finish and has it all. Humor, scary scenes, creepy scenes, thriller scenes, mystery, sad scenes. This movie meanwhile is realistic all the way except a few scenes played up for gags that actually are quite cringe. There is nothing that will make you sad, fearful, irritated, hateful, happy. Anything really, there are no emotions here.
This is basically indoor scenes with dry old men talking in offices. It's realistic brooding acting. Again, high quality and even whole statements and debates are repeated step by step as they actually happened. It's quite curious. But there are plenty of moments where I was getting bored. I do appreciate the handy-work here. But usually in movies you try to tie a story together to always have a clear plot structure. This meanwhile feels hazy. Exactly as if it was written by journalists about small events in offices with no clue about details or mystery. It lacks life. The stuff that happens behind the scenes. Nixon never once feels like a real person with actual wants. They constantly mention how he's human and fallible. In a book that would work. In a movie they needed to take a few creative licenses. We don't know exactly what he told his wife at any one point. But we know he was human and must have talked to her at some point. But since they can't know what happened in his personal life guess what ... the wife never utters a single word even though she is in a ton of scenes front and center. Problem solved? Well, how is this more realistic and true to real life?
Office scenes do get dull quite fast. Most characters are kinda recognizable. Nixon has never looked more realistic on screen and his walk is perfect. The other characters have some questionable looks casting, but they are good actors. I just wish there were some outdoor scenes and some humor or a bit speed at times. This is a 2:30 hour long movie. It needed some tight plot focus at times. It's not that you need to invent stuff. You can just have characters walk in a park and debate what happened. Why set such scenes in hotel rooms with old men slowly talking to each other in a gray setting for over 2 hours? Probably because it's way cheaper prior to the digital camera age and because you likely can't find many such scenes in the book as they were not recorded.
Movies do need to present a clear story with engaging people. And Nixon is not that. And the story is often hard to get. There are scenes that last minutes where he just listens to his own recordings yet we don't quite understand why the statements on them matter. Then 20 minutes later someone explains why they were important. That's again bad plot structure. I can handle minutes on end with no dialogue if you explain WHY it's important so that I can focus on details and take it all in. But of course they couldn't use a narrator because it would ruin the realism too. At least tell us why there is a danger and why people are after him. We never follow a journalist or politician. Even a voter. Just the president alone. And a dull president at that.
This is a high quality movie. But then why would people pick this over the documentary if they seek history alone? They don't try to do more like show the personal side of Nixon or show personal scenes that are impossible in dry documentaries. And White House Plumbers frankly included way more details too while following interesting personalities. So I can't recommend it to all viewers. But people who can accept a very slow pace will appreciate it. I was engaged, but nothing more. Honestly they made a mystery crime story dull. That's not ideal.
Acting: 9 Camera work: 8 Editing: 8 Budget: 7 Story: 7 Theme: 7 Pure entertainment factor: 6 Video quality: 6 Special effects: NA Pacing: 5 Suspension of disbelief: 10 Non-cringe factor: 9 Lack of flashbacks: 10
As seen by the ratings this is a quality product written by the 2 journalists who uncovered the Watergate story as seen in one of the best movies ever made, All the President's Men (1976). This is also 10 times better than the god awful Nixon (1995) movie. This is as historically accurate as a movie can be. Even small scenes carefully reconstruct what one assumes happened. I just watched White House Plumbers (2023) and the 1994 BBC documentary. Both are amazing and highly recommended. So fun to watch. White House Plumbers (2023) is basically as good as you can make the story. Fun from start till finish and has it all. Humor, scary scenes, creepy scenes, thriller scenes, mystery, sad scenes. This movie meanwhile is realistic all the way except a few scenes played up for gags that actually are quite cringe. There is nothing that will make you sad, fearful, irritated, hateful, happy. Anything really, there are no emotions here.
This is basically indoor scenes with dry old men talking in offices. It's realistic brooding acting. Again, high quality and even whole statements and debates are repeated step by step as they actually happened. It's quite curious. But there are plenty of moments where I was getting bored. I do appreciate the handy-work here. But usually in movies you try to tie a story together to always have a clear plot structure. This meanwhile feels hazy. Exactly as if it was written by journalists about small events in offices with no clue about details or mystery. It lacks life. The stuff that happens behind the scenes. Nixon never once feels like a real person with actual wants. They constantly mention how he's human and fallible. In a book that would work. In a movie they needed to take a few creative licenses. We don't know exactly what he told his wife at any one point. But we know he was human and must have talked to her at some point. But since they can't know what happened in his personal life guess what ... the wife never utters a single word even though she is in a ton of scenes front and center. Problem solved? Well, how is this more realistic and true to real life?
Office scenes do get dull quite fast. Most characters are kinda recognizable. Nixon has never looked more realistic on screen and his walk is perfect. The other characters have some questionable looks casting, but they are good actors. I just wish there were some outdoor scenes and some humor or a bit speed at times. This is a 2:30 hour long movie. It needed some tight plot focus at times. It's not that you need to invent stuff. You can just have characters walk in a park and debate what happened. Why set such scenes in hotel rooms with old men slowly talking to each other in a gray setting for over 2 hours? Probably because it's way cheaper prior to the digital camera age and because you likely can't find many such scenes in the book as they were not recorded.
Movies do need to present a clear story with engaging people. And Nixon is not that. And the story is often hard to get. There are scenes that last minutes where he just listens to his own recordings yet we don't quite understand why the statements on them matter. Then 20 minutes later someone explains why they were important. That's again bad plot structure. I can handle minutes on end with no dialogue if you explain WHY it's important so that I can focus on details and take it all in. But of course they couldn't use a narrator because it would ruin the realism too. At least tell us why there is a danger and why people are after him. We never follow a journalist or politician. Even a voter. Just the president alone. And a dull president at that.
This is a high quality movie. But then why would people pick this over the documentary if they seek history alone? They don't try to do more like show the personal side of Nixon or show personal scenes that are impossible in dry documentaries. And White House Plumbers frankly included way more details too while following interesting personalities. So I can't recommend it to all viewers. But people who can accept a very slow pace will appreciate it. I was engaged, but nothing more. Honestly they made a mystery crime story dull. That's not ideal.