A remarkable performance by Frank Langella as Richard Nixon transforms this unexpected Ron Howard film into a gripping and unforgettable experience. The behind the scenes of the famous David Frost, Richard Nixon interviews pale in comparison to the compelling sight of Nixon/Langella thinking. It was difficult to forget that Michael Sheen was not Tony Blair but David Frost. Sheen's Frost is an entertaining foil to Langella's somber,sad, desolate portrait of the former president. Ron Howard finds a winning pace giving the true tale a fictional slant. Unfortunately I never saw the stage production and the film never betrays its theatrical origins. In a bizarre sort of way this is Ron Howard's most cinematic film. I highly recommend it.
282 Reviews
Not to be missed! Vey rewarding
IMDb-62716 October 2008
I had the pleasure of watching this gripping movie at the opening night of the British Film festival. Ron Howard's direction and story telling ability are in top form with this effort. From the very first scene a carefully crafted and very credible 70s's atmosphere sets a solid stage for the superbly cast film and quickly transports the viewer into the political jungle that was "Tricky Dickey's" playground.
The acting duo of Frank Langella & Micheal Sheen (Nixon & Frost) are set on a collision course that finds two deeply passionate personalities at the mercy of their insatiable desires. Both actor's portrayals are a study of affectation and body language, pleasurably accurate and yet not simply an impersonation. Indeed, the film never strays from the distinct Howard format that breathes so much life (read intimacy) into this familiar and yet mysterious relationship that exists for so many people who lived through the exceptional event.
Make no mistake, this is by no means a two man show, quite the contrary. In fact, the wealth of supporting roles is perhaps the finest feature of this production. Bacon's devoted and stalwart marine practically glints of gun metal and polished shoe leather. The trio of Gould, Platt and Rockwell portray effortlessly the roles of the men who, brick by brick, constructed the platform from which Frost so successfully and serendipitously elicited one of the greatest unspoken confessions of all time. Rebecca Hall is delicious and demure, constantly filling scenes with her elegant presence.
Perhaps the richest praise should be reserved for Peter Morgan, who has, without question, penned a truly captivating and insightful story that delivers not only a satisfying comprehension of a complex time in US history, but captures a generation's struggle to come to terms with the frailty of leadership that still echoes today.
Not to be missed, this film can be enjoyed on multiple levels and will undoubtedly be regarded as seminal for it's engrossing insight and expert depiction.
The acting duo of Frank Langella & Micheal Sheen (Nixon & Frost) are set on a collision course that finds two deeply passionate personalities at the mercy of their insatiable desires. Both actor's portrayals are a study of affectation and body language, pleasurably accurate and yet not simply an impersonation. Indeed, the film never strays from the distinct Howard format that breathes so much life (read intimacy) into this familiar and yet mysterious relationship that exists for so many people who lived through the exceptional event.
Make no mistake, this is by no means a two man show, quite the contrary. In fact, the wealth of supporting roles is perhaps the finest feature of this production. Bacon's devoted and stalwart marine practically glints of gun metal and polished shoe leather. The trio of Gould, Platt and Rockwell portray effortlessly the roles of the men who, brick by brick, constructed the platform from which Frost so successfully and serendipitously elicited one of the greatest unspoken confessions of all time. Rebecca Hall is delicious and demure, constantly filling scenes with her elegant presence.
Perhaps the richest praise should be reserved for Peter Morgan, who has, without question, penned a truly captivating and insightful story that delivers not only a satisfying comprehension of a complex time in US history, but captures a generation's struggle to come to terms with the frailty of leadership that still echoes today.
Not to be missed, this film can be enjoyed on multiple levels and will undoubtedly be regarded as seminal for it's engrossing insight and expert depiction.
Great cast, excellent screenplay
ametaphysicalshark15 December 2008
The Frost/Nixon interviews are fascinating. Not every second of them, especially not when Nixon rambles on and on, avoiding questions by offering anecdotes in place of answers. Yet, they are an invaluable historical document, which allow us the rare privilege of seeing a major politician as a human being and nothing else. As interesting as the interviews themselves is the lead-up to them, the circumstances surrounding them, and the characters involved, particularly Frost and Nixon, of course. One could say that you only need to watch the actual footage, but there's ample room for a great dramatization, but it needed an even-handed approach, and certainly needed no political preaching.
I have a personal dislike for Ron Howard as a director, a result of my sensibilities mainly, I suspect. Howard strikes me as a particularly heavy-handed, didactic director who has wasted many great concepts on mediocre films (out of 18 films I've seen by him, I only genuinely liked "Apollo 13". I was expecting the worst with "Frost/Nixon", but instead was met with one of the most entertaining films in a while, and a remarkably well-acted, even-handed, quality character study. I suppose I should have been prepared for a quality screenplay given the success of this Peter Morgan play in New York and London, but I was hardly expecting something this good. It's glib, funny, well-paced, expertly-structured, clever, observant, and intelligent. It creates a fascinating Nixon, played brilliantly by the great Frank Langella, though this is not quite up there with the likes of Oliver Stone's sadly under-appreciated "Nixon" or Robert Altman's endlessly fascinating "Secret Honor". The film is almost surprisingly well-directed, although there is a bit of the old TV trick of shaking the camera a bit, panning too often, to give the illusion of motion and energy when there's really just people in a room talking. The conversation's interesting enough, there's no need for that. Oh well, I suppose I am nitpicking.
As far as Nixon movies go this is lightweight entertainment with plenty of comic moments largely leading up to two or three scenes of real human vulnerability. Aside from these scenes (which are truly, truly excellent), Peter Morgan conceives the meeting as something of a chess match with the unpredictability of a boxing match. To use J. Hoberman's words 'a prize fight between two comeback-hungry veterans, only one of whom could win'. On paper this could have been very heavy on amateur psychoanalysis and low on entertainment value but Morgan and I suppose Howard as well are clever enough to have some fun with the idea. This is not a criticism at all, the film has moments of surprisingly real depth and intellectualism, but overall the nature of the script works in its favor, makes those scenes more interesting, more ultimately rewarding.
"Frost/Nixon" is an entertaining, exciting film, around as populist as I expected but in a very different way. This is the sort of writing we don't see enough of, particularly not in today's films. It's vaguely reminiscent of a particularly good BBC television drama. The cast is certainly good enough for that. Langella and Michael Sheen are outstanding, both manage to accurately portray the real-life men they are portraying while still adding some characterization and mannerisms of their own. Langella's Tony-award winning performance might be up for Oscar consideration soon, but Sheen's Frost almost upstages him at times. No heavy-handedness, no political 'messages', just a fun, clever script and a great cast in a well-made film.
I have a personal dislike for Ron Howard as a director, a result of my sensibilities mainly, I suspect. Howard strikes me as a particularly heavy-handed, didactic director who has wasted many great concepts on mediocre films (out of 18 films I've seen by him, I only genuinely liked "Apollo 13". I was expecting the worst with "Frost/Nixon", but instead was met with one of the most entertaining films in a while, and a remarkably well-acted, even-handed, quality character study. I suppose I should have been prepared for a quality screenplay given the success of this Peter Morgan play in New York and London, but I was hardly expecting something this good. It's glib, funny, well-paced, expertly-structured, clever, observant, and intelligent. It creates a fascinating Nixon, played brilliantly by the great Frank Langella, though this is not quite up there with the likes of Oliver Stone's sadly under-appreciated "Nixon" or Robert Altman's endlessly fascinating "Secret Honor". The film is almost surprisingly well-directed, although there is a bit of the old TV trick of shaking the camera a bit, panning too often, to give the illusion of motion and energy when there's really just people in a room talking. The conversation's interesting enough, there's no need for that. Oh well, I suppose I am nitpicking.
As far as Nixon movies go this is lightweight entertainment with plenty of comic moments largely leading up to two or three scenes of real human vulnerability. Aside from these scenes (which are truly, truly excellent), Peter Morgan conceives the meeting as something of a chess match with the unpredictability of a boxing match. To use J. Hoberman's words 'a prize fight between two comeback-hungry veterans, only one of whom could win'. On paper this could have been very heavy on amateur psychoanalysis and low on entertainment value but Morgan and I suppose Howard as well are clever enough to have some fun with the idea. This is not a criticism at all, the film has moments of surprisingly real depth and intellectualism, but overall the nature of the script works in its favor, makes those scenes more interesting, more ultimately rewarding.
"Frost/Nixon" is an entertaining, exciting film, around as populist as I expected but in a very different way. This is the sort of writing we don't see enough of, particularly not in today's films. It's vaguely reminiscent of a particularly good BBC television drama. The cast is certainly good enough for that. Langella and Michael Sheen are outstanding, both manage to accurately portray the real-life men they are portraying while still adding some characterization and mannerisms of their own. Langella's Tony-award winning performance might be up for Oscar consideration soon, but Sheen's Frost almost upstages him at times. No heavy-handedness, no political 'messages', just a fun, clever script and a great cast in a well-made film.
Mr. Nixon, It's Time for Your Close-up
WriterDave18 December 2008
Ron Howard's competent film adaptation of Peter Morgan's play (who also scripted and co-produced here) dramatizes the famous Frost/Nixon interviews from 1977. At one point in the film, Kevin Bacon's character explains to Frank Langella's Nixon that a portion of the interview will focus on "Nixon the man". To which Nixon retorted, "As opposed to what? Nixon the horse?" Of course what was on everyone's mind at the time was Watergate and how American was never able to give Nixon the trial they so desperately wanted. Through the unlikely Frost interviews, the American people finally heard the truth behind the scandal--straight from the horse's mouth.
Morgan's source material translates smoothly onto film. Much as he did with "The Queen", he mixes a behind the scenes look at the immediate time period leading up to the historical event and closes with an almost word-for-word dramatization of said event. Also, like "The Queen", we have the excellent Michael Sheen on board, who after playing Tony Blair now takes on the mannerisms of the legendary British talk-show host and man-about-town David Frost. Director Ron Howard nicely interweaves archival news footage, faux-post interviews with the secondary players, and the dramatic reenactments of the actual Frost/Nixon interviews. Howard's studied but pedestrian style of direction lends itself well to this type of docudrama as he allows the actual events to speak for themselves and the fine performances to shine on their own. Though it takes quite awhile to get where it's going, the final interview where Frost takes Nixon head-on about the Watergate cover-up is a payoff well worth the wait.
Of course the most fascinating aspect of the film is Frank Langella's portrayal of a shamed and swollen Richard Nixon. He plays him as a fallen man desperate for an act of contrition but still in too deep with his old trickery and slick ways. His performance, and the way it connects with the audience, is wonderfully layered. On one level, we have an aged actor thought to be well past his prime firing back on all cylinders in a renaissance role that will likely lead to a showering of award nominations. The way the film reduces his performance to that one lingering close-up after being steamrolled by Frost on the last day of the interview leaves a lasting impression. But it also works on another level as it is meant to represent the reduction of Nixon's political life to that one lingering close-up on the television monitor when he realized it's all over for him. The audience members who remember watching the interviews and can picture the actual close-up they saw on their TV screens are now allowed to share a communion with the audience members who weren't even born yet and now only have a memory of Langella's face on the silver screen. In that sense, Langella truly became Nixon, and his performance will not soon be forgotten.
Morgan's source material translates smoothly onto film. Much as he did with "The Queen", he mixes a behind the scenes look at the immediate time period leading up to the historical event and closes with an almost word-for-word dramatization of said event. Also, like "The Queen", we have the excellent Michael Sheen on board, who after playing Tony Blair now takes on the mannerisms of the legendary British talk-show host and man-about-town David Frost. Director Ron Howard nicely interweaves archival news footage, faux-post interviews with the secondary players, and the dramatic reenactments of the actual Frost/Nixon interviews. Howard's studied but pedestrian style of direction lends itself well to this type of docudrama as he allows the actual events to speak for themselves and the fine performances to shine on their own. Though it takes quite awhile to get where it's going, the final interview where Frost takes Nixon head-on about the Watergate cover-up is a payoff well worth the wait.
Of course the most fascinating aspect of the film is Frank Langella's portrayal of a shamed and swollen Richard Nixon. He plays him as a fallen man desperate for an act of contrition but still in too deep with his old trickery and slick ways. His performance, and the way it connects with the audience, is wonderfully layered. On one level, we have an aged actor thought to be well past his prime firing back on all cylinders in a renaissance role that will likely lead to a showering of award nominations. The way the film reduces his performance to that one lingering close-up after being steamrolled by Frost on the last day of the interview leaves a lasting impression. But it also works on another level as it is meant to represent the reduction of Nixon's political life to that one lingering close-up on the television monitor when he realized it's all over for him. The audience members who remember watching the interviews and can picture the actual close-up they saw on their TV screens are now allowed to share a communion with the audience members who weren't even born yet and now only have a memory of Langella's face on the silver screen. In that sense, Langella truly became Nixon, and his performance will not soon be forgotten.
An excellent portrayal of a controversial president.
MairegChernet25 January 2009
Frost/Nixon is one of the best film of the year, and certainly a strong contender for best picture. Langella's marvelous performance as the bedazzled Richard Nixon and Michael Sheen's terrific portrayal of the rigorous David Frost combined with Ron Howard's magnificent direction make the movie a memorable one. Not only that but the supporting cast- including Sam Rockwell, Kevin Bacon, Matthew MacFayden and Olvier Platt- was also phenomenal. Frost/Nixon is an epic, an epic that involves not guns and human sacrifices but words and tense emotions. It's also a historically significant film, for all who crave to know what really happened and whether or not Nixon didn't "obstruct any laws." In short Frost/Nixon is an amazing film filled with sharp dialogues, amazing performances and tense and provocative sentiments as well as an explosive yet subtle ending.
10/10 Go see it!
10/10 Go see it!
Frost/Nixon
jboothmillard5 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
From Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe nominated director Ron Howard (The Paper, Apollo 13, A Beautiful Mind), I knew that this film would be focusing on the time of the biggest political and financial possibly in the whole of American history, and I was up for seeing a reconstruction of one the major events in the aftermath. Basically, based on the stage play, set in 1970's, the Watergate scandal breaks in in 1972 and President of the United States, Richard Nixon (Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe nominated Frank Langella), may have been directly involved, and in 1974 he resigned from office without admitting any guilt and without any apology to the nation. A few weeks later British talk show host (Sir) David Frost (Michael Sheen) is in discussion with the heads at LWT (London Weekend Television) with high interest in interviewing the former President, but they do not believe many people will watch and that he would be willing to talk to anyone, but Frost persuades them, telling them that the live resignation speech was watched by 400 million. After Nixon has recovered from phlebitis in hospital, a deal is made after securing the figure of $600,000 (originally $500,000) for a series of interviews, paying an advance, but Nixon's post-presidential chief of staff Jack Brennan (Kevin Bacon) doubts he can pay the entire sum, and Frost is being turned by all U.S. broadcast networks because of his lightweight approach during interviews. Deciding to finance the project privately he prepares his research and questions with his friend and producer John Birt (Matthew Macfadyen), and investigators James Reston Jr. (Sam Rockwell) and Bob Zelnick (Oliver Platt), he also turns down the offer of lead involving a Federal Courthouse in Washington. Frost does get to meet Nixon before the interviews process will begin, and he is warned about his approach by the former President's people, but even these things don't make him fully realise the antagonistic nature the talks could bring between the two men, and certainly he cannot comprehend how important they could be in the careers of them both. The first three sessions of recording, each lasting two and a half hours, Nixon is allowed to talk and talk almost uninterrupted and answers rather vague and unimportant questions that tread carefully, these long monologues he gives, such as swift brush through of Vietnam and his achievements in foreign policy stop Frost from challenging him with the pressing questions, so his editorial team express their frustrations and doubt his ability as an interviewer. The final session is the one that will focus on the Watergate scandal, and four days before Frost gets a phone call in his hotel room from an inebriated Nixon, and mistaking him for his new partner Caroline Cushing (Rebecca Hall) he answered the phone with a mention of a cheeseburger, this gets their conversation flowing, but of course Nixon gets serious in saying that the final talk will make or break both of them, he sees it as some kind of psychological battle, where if he wins he will revive his political career, he is sure he will be the victor. Following the phone call Frost goes into action researching all night through to the morning, and having sold the interviews to interested networks and gaining advertising sponsors he accepts the offer from Reston about the lead he has, the next three days he spends preparing, and he is ready for the final recorded conversation with the information he has gathered, including about Charles Colson involved in the scandal. The editors are gripped by Frost's more confident and badgering technique to take on Nixon, even causing him to say the shocking words "When the President does it, that means it's not illegal", essentially concluding he covered up his wrongdoing, and when asked to confirm this Brennan bursts in to stop the recording and take the President out to stop he can incriminate himself more. Nixon thanks Brennan for his concern, but he wants to continue, and when recording resumes Nixon admits participating in a cover-up and in an emotional moment opens up and says that "he let the American people down" and that he regrets it deeply, this was the point of the interview that became momentous, he is congratulated by his crew for creating a must see piece of television. Before returning to England, Frost and Nixon meet at his villa, where the interviewer presents the former President with a pair of shoes, Nixon graciously accepts defeat from the psychological battle, and Frost confirms his question about calling him at his hotel and that they talked about cheeseburgers, the final text tells that the word "gate" has become common in reported scandals, Frost continues to interview, and that Nixon wrote his memoirs, but never escaped controversy, so stayed out of the limelight until he died. Also starring Toby Jones as Irving 'Swifty' Lazar, Clint Howard (Ron's brother) as Lloyd Davis, Patty McCormack as Pat Nixon and Rance Howard (Ron's father) as Ollie. Both Langhella and Sheen give marvellously strong performances as they try to outwit each other psychologically using the power of their words to get and out of each other's heads, the script really relies on strong words, some obviously based on the real interviews, so it feels just as compelling as the real thing, and the story is played out well, even if you don't know much about politics this is a worthwhile watch, a terrific historical drama. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Film Editing, Best Writing, Adapted Screenplay and Best Motion Picture of the Year, it was nominated the BAFTA for Best Film, Best Editing, Best Make Up & Hair and Best Adapted Screenplay, and it was nominated the Golden Globes for Best Motion Picture – Drama, Best Original Score for Hans Zimmer and Best Screenplay. Very good!
Howard does not disgrace himself, and the play works better as a film.
Chris Knipp10 November 2008
It didn't seem so in the run-up to the event, but British talk show host/interviewer David Frost's 1977 series of four on screen encounters with the disgraced ex-President Richard Nixon was great, historic television. This movie directed by Ron Howard successfully transfers the Peter Morgan play about the event to the big screen. Arguably, the story belonged here all along. The paraphernalia of a Hollywood production enables Howard to gussy up this claustrophobic event with such acoutrements as the luxury suite of a 747, Nixon's "smart" seaside villa La Casa Pacifica at San Clemente, and the impressive, downright menacing sight of a presidential motorcade. As the train of glittering, dark limos approach the Nixon friend's house where the interviews were shot it feels like a battalion of tanks; and Caroline Cushing (Rebecca Hall), the British socialite Frost chats up on the plane and makes his consort for the duration of the exploit seems the more slinky and glamorous for emerging from a posh airplane rather than a bare stage. Lighting tricks and artful camera angles help make Frank Langella morph more successfully into Nixon than his physicality would otherwise permit. Michael Sheen as Frost already seems to look and sound like his character, and the "monkey suit" blue blazer outfits add the final touch. His task is easier; we don't know so well or care so much what Frost was like. In the film version, both performances take on more nuance. Langella's performance on camera brims of with dyspeptic melancholy, aggression, and self-pity; Michael Sheen's as frost glitters with a muted, hysterical cheer mixing infantilism and fear. The extra visuals of a film also help to show Nixon's comfort and loneliness and Frost's sleazy playboy side.
It's important that the fakery should work well, because the movie must provide lots of closeups that those in the balcony didn't see. So long as it works, the feeling of TV interviews is better achieved in the film, and the actors don't have to yell. The camera, sometimes annoyingly jerky, but in the best moments simply direct and relentless, does their yelling for them.
So I'm saying this is a winner. Peter Morgan after all did the screenplay, and he's no stranger to such efforts--notable examples of his film writing are in The Last King of Scotland and The Queen; a rather less notable one is The Other Boleyn Girl. The flaws are simply in the events. For three of the interview parts, till it gets to Watergate in the fourth, Nixon seems to be winning. Despite a dramatic intervention by Nixon support staffer Col Jack Brennan (Kevin Bacon) to prevent an abject breakdown, Nixon does buckle under in part four. But his admissions still remain in the realm of generality, and there is the question: does anything said on TV really matter? The audience for a West End or Broadway play is a bit different from the popcorn crowd and how appealing this film will be to the mainstream is uncertain. Needless to say it's all talk and minimal action. For students of contemporary American history nonetheless the topic is thrilling. Frost used his own money for down payments. In need of cash and highly mercenary, Nixon used the celebrity agent Swiftie Lazar (Toby Jones) to get $600,000 for the interviews. Frost lost sponsors and the US networks refused to come aboard. He made down payments from his own funds and borrowed. He hired two journalists, Bob Zelnick (Oliver Platt) and James Reston (Sam Rockwell), to do support research. Reston was a firebrand opponent of Nixon. He refused to participate unless there was a commitment to shame Nixon and get him to admit he did wrong in Watergate and betrayed the country's trust.
The issue was whether Frost had the depth to tackle a job like this. He wanted a Watergate confession too, but he let Nicon play him with small talk (despite the man's claim that he was no good at it) and temporize with lengthy self-serving reminiscences that blunted most of Frost's pointed questions. This is where Zelick and especially Reston come in to give a sense of urgency. Again the film excels where the play couldn't in showing Nixon's walk out to his car after each encounter, jubilant at first, pathetic at the end.
Ultimately both in the play and the film, Frost's victory seems a hollow one, of little significance to morality or history. This is above all a story about television. In that arena, this was a coup. and there is great drama in how close Frost's project came to failing. As the encounters got under way, he was losing every sponsor, and later he lost his Australian show, having some time earlier lost his American one. The film tells us they all came back, and then some. Frost never really seems to have reentered the world of American television, but he has had many projects in England and is said now to be "worth £20 million," with a live weekly current affairs program on Al Jazeera English. Nixon is dead, and though he may have won three rounds out of four in the Frost interviews, his legacy is tainted.
The show belongs to Sheen and Langella, but Bacon is excellent as the stiff, loyal Col. Brennan, and Sam Rockwell strong in an unusually serious role for him. As Nixon's somewhat lost wife Pat, the child star of The Bad Seed Patty McCormack is touching. There are lots of other actors, far more than in the stage production, and the best thing is they don't get in the way. San Clemente also plays a significant role. The brightness and beauty of Nixon's ocean-side estate helps dramatize his depression by contrast. There were doubts about putting Howard in charge of the screen version, but they were groundless.
It's important that the fakery should work well, because the movie must provide lots of closeups that those in the balcony didn't see. So long as it works, the feeling of TV interviews is better achieved in the film, and the actors don't have to yell. The camera, sometimes annoyingly jerky, but in the best moments simply direct and relentless, does their yelling for them.
So I'm saying this is a winner. Peter Morgan after all did the screenplay, and he's no stranger to such efforts--notable examples of his film writing are in The Last King of Scotland and The Queen; a rather less notable one is The Other Boleyn Girl. The flaws are simply in the events. For three of the interview parts, till it gets to Watergate in the fourth, Nixon seems to be winning. Despite a dramatic intervention by Nixon support staffer Col Jack Brennan (Kevin Bacon) to prevent an abject breakdown, Nixon does buckle under in part four. But his admissions still remain in the realm of generality, and there is the question: does anything said on TV really matter? The audience for a West End or Broadway play is a bit different from the popcorn crowd and how appealing this film will be to the mainstream is uncertain. Needless to say it's all talk and minimal action. For students of contemporary American history nonetheless the topic is thrilling. Frost used his own money for down payments. In need of cash and highly mercenary, Nixon used the celebrity agent Swiftie Lazar (Toby Jones) to get $600,000 for the interviews. Frost lost sponsors and the US networks refused to come aboard. He made down payments from his own funds and borrowed. He hired two journalists, Bob Zelnick (Oliver Platt) and James Reston (Sam Rockwell), to do support research. Reston was a firebrand opponent of Nixon. He refused to participate unless there was a commitment to shame Nixon and get him to admit he did wrong in Watergate and betrayed the country's trust.
The issue was whether Frost had the depth to tackle a job like this. He wanted a Watergate confession too, but he let Nicon play him with small talk (despite the man's claim that he was no good at it) and temporize with lengthy self-serving reminiscences that blunted most of Frost's pointed questions. This is where Zelick and especially Reston come in to give a sense of urgency. Again the film excels where the play couldn't in showing Nixon's walk out to his car after each encounter, jubilant at first, pathetic at the end.
Ultimately both in the play and the film, Frost's victory seems a hollow one, of little significance to morality or history. This is above all a story about television. In that arena, this was a coup. and there is great drama in how close Frost's project came to failing. As the encounters got under way, he was losing every sponsor, and later he lost his Australian show, having some time earlier lost his American one. The film tells us they all came back, and then some. Frost never really seems to have reentered the world of American television, but he has had many projects in England and is said now to be "worth £20 million," with a live weekly current affairs program on Al Jazeera English. Nixon is dead, and though he may have won three rounds out of four in the Frost interviews, his legacy is tainted.
The show belongs to Sheen and Langella, but Bacon is excellent as the stiff, loyal Col. Brennan, and Sam Rockwell strong in an unusually serious role for him. As Nixon's somewhat lost wife Pat, the child star of The Bad Seed Patty McCormack is touching. There are lots of other actors, far more than in the stage production, and the best thing is they don't get in the way. San Clemente also plays a significant role. The brightness and beauty of Nixon's ocean-side estate helps dramatize his depression by contrast. There were doubts about putting Howard in charge of the screen version, but they were groundless.
Good craic.
David_Frames20 October 2008
It wasn't exactly a meeting of minds, nor was it motivated by a need to get to the truth, but the set of interviews that brought disgraced President Richard Nixon into a room with David Frost, is a fascinating historical tit bit an act of opportunism on both sides that lead to one of the most sensational disclosures in the history of television political journalism. Nixon had broken the law and this unlikely confessional took place in the company of a light entertainment presenter. Imagine Tony Blair confessing he lied about the reasons for going to war in Iraq to Des O Connor and you realise how amazing this actually was.
Howard's film is fairly dispassionate in its treatment of both men. Frost, played with delicious smarm and just the right amount of arrogance by Michael Sheen, is constituted as a fledgling but highly libidinous talk show host, who in Nixon sees an opportunity to reinvigorate his celebrity and gain credibility in the US. Nixon on the other hand is in denial about his role in the Watergate scandal, fired up with a sense of self-righteousness and indignation at the liberal 'sons of bitches' that brought him down and is determined to use the encounter to rewrite history to his own advantage. Both men, it's suggested, have something to prove to themselves and their peers but mercifully the shadowy reflection angle isn't laboured en route to the tense exchanges. The climax, when it comes, manages to be both mesmerising and moving, not least because both actors meet the requirement of transcending mere impersonation and inhabit their characters. When you're told that Nixon's face betrayed, better than any trial, the personal regret, hubristic folly and watershed breakdown in the relationship between the American electorate and its government, thanks to Frank Langella, you believe it.
Howard's film is fairly dispassionate in its treatment of both men. Frost, played with delicious smarm and just the right amount of arrogance by Michael Sheen, is constituted as a fledgling but highly libidinous talk show host, who in Nixon sees an opportunity to reinvigorate his celebrity and gain credibility in the US. Nixon on the other hand is in denial about his role in the Watergate scandal, fired up with a sense of self-righteousness and indignation at the liberal 'sons of bitches' that brought him down and is determined to use the encounter to rewrite history to his own advantage. Both men, it's suggested, have something to prove to themselves and their peers but mercifully the shadowy reflection angle isn't laboured en route to the tense exchanges. The climax, when it comes, manages to be both mesmerising and moving, not least because both actors meet the requirement of transcending mere impersonation and inhabit their characters. When you're told that Nixon's face betrayed, better than any trial, the personal regret, hubristic folly and watershed breakdown in the relationship between the American electorate and its government, thanks to Frank Langella, you believe it.
excellent performances, excellent screenplay
blanche-215 July 2011
Peter Morgan adapted his wonderful stage play Frost/Nixon for film with tremendous success. Directed by Ron Howard and starring Michael Sheen as David Frost and Frank Langella as Nixon, it tells the behind-the-scenes story of the famous series of interviews.
For all many of us who lived through the Nixon presidency and Watergate, this is not the stuff of nostalgia or happy reminiscence. And when the Nixon tapes were published and his bigotry against just about everyone was revealed in explicit "expletive deleted" language, it was time to get disgusted all over again.
Here, portrayed by Frank Langella, we see Nixon as a lonely, vulnerable, angry, and bitter human being, a man who's made a bed he must sleep in for the next twenty years. We also see a manipulative and highly intelligent individual who, despite a great deal of success, had no self-worth. It's the feeling of being an outsider, of never being good enough, that led him to some atrocious decisions.
It's Langella's performance and Michael Sheen's wonderful performance as David Frost -- playboy, comedian, talk show host, and party-giver turned investigative journalist -- that anchor "Frost/Nixon." They are given great support by Kevin Bacon as Nixon's protective assistant, Jack Brennan, Sam Rockwell as James Reston, determined that Nixon pay for Watergate, as well as Oliver Platt, Matthew Mcfadyen, and Toby Jones.
I found the determination of Frost as he attempted to raise financing for the interviews and get networks interested -- with no luck -- very admirable and inspiring. And his gut instinct paid off for him big time.
I transcribed an interview with Nixon that took place in his home in the 1980s, as well as a speech he made during one of the Presidential election periods. He was a brilliant speaker, and as an interviewee, when the interview was over, he engaged the reporter in a very friendly personal conversation. In the end, both those listening experiences made me sad, as did this film. For everything he achieved, Richard Nixon had undeveloped gifts and potential. He robbed the world of a lot more than the ability to trust government. But in the end, as the film shows, he robbed himself the most.
For all many of us who lived through the Nixon presidency and Watergate, this is not the stuff of nostalgia or happy reminiscence. And when the Nixon tapes were published and his bigotry against just about everyone was revealed in explicit "expletive deleted" language, it was time to get disgusted all over again.
Here, portrayed by Frank Langella, we see Nixon as a lonely, vulnerable, angry, and bitter human being, a man who's made a bed he must sleep in for the next twenty years. We also see a manipulative and highly intelligent individual who, despite a great deal of success, had no self-worth. It's the feeling of being an outsider, of never being good enough, that led him to some atrocious decisions.
It's Langella's performance and Michael Sheen's wonderful performance as David Frost -- playboy, comedian, talk show host, and party-giver turned investigative journalist -- that anchor "Frost/Nixon." They are given great support by Kevin Bacon as Nixon's protective assistant, Jack Brennan, Sam Rockwell as James Reston, determined that Nixon pay for Watergate, as well as Oliver Platt, Matthew Mcfadyen, and Toby Jones.
I found the determination of Frost as he attempted to raise financing for the interviews and get networks interested -- with no luck -- very admirable and inspiring. And his gut instinct paid off for him big time.
I transcribed an interview with Nixon that took place in his home in the 1980s, as well as a speech he made during one of the Presidential election periods. He was a brilliant speaker, and as an interviewee, when the interview was over, he engaged the reporter in a very friendly personal conversation. In the end, both those listening experiences made me sad, as did this film. For everything he achieved, Richard Nixon had undeveloped gifts and potential. He robbed the world of a lot more than the ability to trust government. But in the end, as the film shows, he robbed himself the most.
Solid Drama, Simplistic History
slokes18 April 2010
History-based movies often make a deeper impression when playing fast and loose with the facts. Think "Casablanca", "Patton", or "Richard III." "Frost/Nixon" isn't quite up there, but it's an entertaining ride with deep resonances - even if it doesn't stick to the facts.
In the mid-1970s, disgraced ex-President of the United States Richard Nixon (Frank Langella) is searching for a way out from the shadows of his near-impeachment. Enter David Frost (Michael Sheen), jet-setting British interviewer who sees in Nixon his own way back into the big time, provided he can acquire elusive commercial backing. But is Frost up to the deeper challenge of pinning down one of history's most morally compromised men?
"I spent yesterday evening watching you interview the Bee Gees," says Frost's skeptical producer John Birt (Matthew Macfadyen).
"Weren't they terrific!" replies Frost with characteristic misplaced ebullience.
While much of the drama of the movie rests on Frost's efforts to take the initiative away from Nixon with tough, unexpected questions, the film itself is entirely Langella's. He's a sad creature of darkness, seen glimpsing Frost for the first time in half-shadow like Dracula, not the one Langella was playing on Broadway when Frost/Nixon was actually going down, but Bela's Dracula. Yet he craves the light, and the possibility is held out that he may even see this interview, "no holds barred", as a way of making restitution for his failure.
That's one interpretation of where the film takes the actual story, with made-up events including Nixon's unfamiliarity with Frost (in life, the two had sat on-camera before, in 1969), Frost's frustration over landing a punch, and, most luridly but effectively, Nixon making a late-night phone call to Frost that never occurred. You can't help wishing it did, though.
Credit Peter Morgan's screenplay, based on his stage work, with getting one to not only accept but welcome this imaginative interpretation - to a point. It's not exactly like the Frost interviews changed anything regarding Nixon or his legacy. It didn't even get Frost back his American television series, contrary to the end notes of this movie. Seeing Nixon portrayed as a flawed human being, with warmth and humor, can be gratifying to those of us disposed to cut Dick some slack and resent the show-trial impulses of James Reston Jr. (Sam Rockwell), but how believable is it for him to joke about sending some Cubans to spy on Frost's research team?
In the end, I found my queasiness with the storyline and its direction more than compensated for by Morgan's artful blend of suspense and humor, the lead acting (Sheen is actually more convincing as Frost, and does more to sell the dramatic tension of his scenes with Nixon, but I could never take my eyes off Langella), and a game supporting cast. Ron Howard directs with surprising restraint that suggests a more mature direction in his fine if flashy career; it's not as good overall as his "Apollo 13" but this time Howard proves a better director.
It doesn't surprise me that "Frost/Nixon" is one movie both Reston and the faithful few at the Nixon Library both seem to bless; it's about hating the crime but not the criminal. Perhaps this is posterity's way of simultaneously catching up with Nixon's wrongdoings and Gerald Ford's controversial pardon. Complicated, affecting, even if it feels somewhat half-chewed; Watergate felt like that then, too.
In the mid-1970s, disgraced ex-President of the United States Richard Nixon (Frank Langella) is searching for a way out from the shadows of his near-impeachment. Enter David Frost (Michael Sheen), jet-setting British interviewer who sees in Nixon his own way back into the big time, provided he can acquire elusive commercial backing. But is Frost up to the deeper challenge of pinning down one of history's most morally compromised men?
"I spent yesterday evening watching you interview the Bee Gees," says Frost's skeptical producer John Birt (Matthew Macfadyen).
"Weren't they terrific!" replies Frost with characteristic misplaced ebullience.
While much of the drama of the movie rests on Frost's efforts to take the initiative away from Nixon with tough, unexpected questions, the film itself is entirely Langella's. He's a sad creature of darkness, seen glimpsing Frost for the first time in half-shadow like Dracula, not the one Langella was playing on Broadway when Frost/Nixon was actually going down, but Bela's Dracula. Yet he craves the light, and the possibility is held out that he may even see this interview, "no holds barred", as a way of making restitution for his failure.
That's one interpretation of where the film takes the actual story, with made-up events including Nixon's unfamiliarity with Frost (in life, the two had sat on-camera before, in 1969), Frost's frustration over landing a punch, and, most luridly but effectively, Nixon making a late-night phone call to Frost that never occurred. You can't help wishing it did, though.
Credit Peter Morgan's screenplay, based on his stage work, with getting one to not only accept but welcome this imaginative interpretation - to a point. It's not exactly like the Frost interviews changed anything regarding Nixon or his legacy. It didn't even get Frost back his American television series, contrary to the end notes of this movie. Seeing Nixon portrayed as a flawed human being, with warmth and humor, can be gratifying to those of us disposed to cut Dick some slack and resent the show-trial impulses of James Reston Jr. (Sam Rockwell), but how believable is it for him to joke about sending some Cubans to spy on Frost's research team?
In the end, I found my queasiness with the storyline and its direction more than compensated for by Morgan's artful blend of suspense and humor, the lead acting (Sheen is actually more convincing as Frost, and does more to sell the dramatic tension of his scenes with Nixon, but I could never take my eyes off Langella), and a game supporting cast. Ron Howard directs with surprising restraint that suggests a more mature direction in his fine if flashy career; it's not as good overall as his "Apollo 13" but this time Howard proves a better director.
It doesn't surprise me that "Frost/Nixon" is one movie both Reston and the faithful few at the Nixon Library both seem to bless; it's about hating the crime but not the criminal. Perhaps this is posterity's way of simultaneously catching up with Nixon's wrongdoings and Gerald Ford's controversial pardon. Complicated, affecting, even if it feels somewhat half-chewed; Watergate felt like that then, too.
Marvelous
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews13 May 2010
The sole reason I did not watch this in the cinema two years ago was that I could not find a theater near me that played it, and I was, as I am now, a busy student. That caused me to have to take breaks in my viewing of it, and I have to say, it was not easy to do so. It is, simply put, immensely gripping, and the ending is pitch perfect. I haven't seen the play, but I understand that this expands upon the people around the two who were engaged in the verbal boxing match, especially Cushing. The two leads are the same, and I can get behind getting them to do both versions. They are immensely talented(they had the material so committed to memory that they only flubbed once each), and Sheen is an absolute chameleon, disappearing entirely into what he portrays(I can just barely believe that he played Lucian in the Underworld trilogy... great job in those, by the way). The cast is fantastic, and everyone really delves into their credible and swiftly developed characters. This manages to not paint anyone as a one-note good or bad guy, and I have to admit, I did not feel any sympathy for the former president before this film. The acting is amazing. Dialog is excellent. A little of it was improvised; so was most of the camera-work, and it helps make it feel dynamic and natural. This builds tension rather well. The drama is compelling. There is a short sequence of disturbing content, infrequent strong language and brief nudity in this. The DVD comes with an informational commentary track by Howard, a well-done 23 minute behind-the-scenes production, 22 and a half minutes of deleted scenes, and two well-made featurettes of 7 and a half minutes(about the real interview) and six minutes(about the Nixon library), respectively. I recommend this to anyone interested in the subject. 8/10
Interesting, but not a masterpiece by any means
DarthVoorhees17 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The Frost/Nixon interviews were a television milestone, but director Ron Howard sees them as more than they were. Historically were they that important? Sure some people found it satisfying to see Richard Nixon put under pressure. The film is structured around Richard Nixon being put under pressure, but in the end I just asked myself "Does this really matter?" I certainly don't think David Frost is some sort of hero. I think David Frost at best is a historical Trivial Pursuit footnote. In the end Richard Nixon didn't get punished for his deeds, and he did achieve a certain dignity before his death. The movie isn't about Frost and Nixon. It's about Frost being some cultural warrior for a society that hates Richard Nixon. It takes a pretentious viewpoint to think of Frost as that. I kept thinking of Tom Hanks in Mike Nichol's "Charlie Wilson's War". Howard is revising history to bend to his own ends. Frost/Nixon isn't a political thriller, at best it's an uneven drama. I think the film would have been far more effective as a character study about these two flawed men.
Richard Nixon is made to be some sort of villain here. This is a lazy characterization and even the strongest performance by Frank Langella couldn't have saved the lens of this Nixon character. It's boring to see Nixon as some sort of villain. Howard having grown up in that Watergate generation wants to demonize him I suppose. Nixon was by far the more interesting character in the film. What appealed to me about him was the psychological motives of the character. Either Nixon was truly a devil, or he truly believed what he was doing was in the best interests of the country. Historically Nixon is an interesting conundrum. Had Watergate never been discovered one might have viewed him as a decent president. Langella is good in portraying Nixon as someone who believes what he was doing was right, but there are moments when the lens is just far too skewed. What is the audience supposed to think when they see Toby Jones, and Kevin Bacon as Nixon's handlers? They are creepy people working for a creepy man. Frost is the good to Nixon's evil. This is a far less compelling approach than the ripe character study these men provide.
Frost is a moral crusader, and that is a hard pill to swallow. "Why didn't you burn the tapes" he wants to ask Nixon as his big opening. What's the motive behind his interview? I think it would be far more interesting for Frost to be what he was, a comedian turned into an awkward interviewer. I mean what does Frost have to gain from his interviewing Nixon? Howard suggests that Frost had sound goals all the way from the beginning, that he saw himself as the man to heal America. This Capra-esquire approach is stupid and boring. Ratings, money, and prestige were obviously a big portion of why David Frost sought out to get Nixon in his chair.
For a film entitled Frost/Nixon this picture seems awfully crowded. It's a match between two men. We get to know the sidekicks a little more than I would have personally preferred. Sam Rockwell plays dialogue that is forced and inorganic and he is the focus of more scenes than are necessary. Rockwell plays a caricature of a liberal scholar who felt personally betrayed by Nixon. Ironically the film's greatest failure though is it's inability to truly delve deep into the feelings of Watergate. To truly understand why these interviews were an important cultural moment we need to understand the culture of this time. We don't get to view into the culture.
The idea of cameras never lying is brought up at the end of the film. Television is a business made of lies and false realities. It's a business befitting of immoral men. We have a film about ideas rather than a film about men. The intended effect is not present.
Richard Nixon is made to be some sort of villain here. This is a lazy characterization and even the strongest performance by Frank Langella couldn't have saved the lens of this Nixon character. It's boring to see Nixon as some sort of villain. Howard having grown up in that Watergate generation wants to demonize him I suppose. Nixon was by far the more interesting character in the film. What appealed to me about him was the psychological motives of the character. Either Nixon was truly a devil, or he truly believed what he was doing was in the best interests of the country. Historically Nixon is an interesting conundrum. Had Watergate never been discovered one might have viewed him as a decent president. Langella is good in portraying Nixon as someone who believes what he was doing was right, but there are moments when the lens is just far too skewed. What is the audience supposed to think when they see Toby Jones, and Kevin Bacon as Nixon's handlers? They are creepy people working for a creepy man. Frost is the good to Nixon's evil. This is a far less compelling approach than the ripe character study these men provide.
Frost is a moral crusader, and that is a hard pill to swallow. "Why didn't you burn the tapes" he wants to ask Nixon as his big opening. What's the motive behind his interview? I think it would be far more interesting for Frost to be what he was, a comedian turned into an awkward interviewer. I mean what does Frost have to gain from his interviewing Nixon? Howard suggests that Frost had sound goals all the way from the beginning, that he saw himself as the man to heal America. This Capra-esquire approach is stupid and boring. Ratings, money, and prestige were obviously a big portion of why David Frost sought out to get Nixon in his chair.
For a film entitled Frost/Nixon this picture seems awfully crowded. It's a match between two men. We get to know the sidekicks a little more than I would have personally preferred. Sam Rockwell plays dialogue that is forced and inorganic and he is the focus of more scenes than are necessary. Rockwell plays a caricature of a liberal scholar who felt personally betrayed by Nixon. Ironically the film's greatest failure though is it's inability to truly delve deep into the feelings of Watergate. To truly understand why these interviews were an important cultural moment we need to understand the culture of this time. We don't get to view into the culture.
The idea of cameras never lying is brought up at the end of the film. Television is a business made of lies and false realities. It's a business befitting of immoral men. We have a film about ideas rather than a film about men. The intended effect is not present.
Enjoyable as a story - flawed as a representation of the truth
Vondaz24 February 2011
I had never seen the real interview between Frost and Nixon and so came into this movie totally fresh. The story is engaging, the script enjoyable and the acting fine. At the end though, I didn't get what all the fuss was about. I didn't get a "he said it!!" moment.
The film implied that Frost had gotten Nixon to admit to something no-one else could (i.e. something illegal), thereby condemning himself to political wilderness. However, instead I was left feeling that Nixon was an OK guy - an intelligent, quick witted, sincere and strong guy who did what it took to get things done. Whereas Frost came across as a chancer, who was a bit lucky. At the end I wondered what the purpose of the movie was.
I have now seen the actual footage of the interviews and can only conclude that the movie's purpose was to show Nixon in a much more favourable light than he would've come across in the real interviews - because in the real interviews, he stinks. In the real interviews you can see the panic in his face, you can see the often painfully contrived shows of friendliness in his mannerisms and you can hear the uncoordinated logic of his answers. Whereas in the movie he's smooth with his answers and his mannerisms.
Any Brits out there should liken Nixon to our very own Gordon Brown - a man as bereft of any social attractiveness as Nixon. By getting Langella to play Nixon, it's like getting Alec Guiness to play Brown. I.e. a brilliant actor, but a million miles away from the truth.
And THAT'S the problem with these recent "real life" movies that focus on people in high offices of state - The Queen, The Special Relationship and now Frost/Nixon. The films make the people in high office appear to be totally articulate, very quick witted, sincere, at times funny and always strong in character and determination. Whereas the truth is anything but that. We've seen footage of a supposedly eloquent Clinton and he is anything but. We've seen the Queen deliver her speeches and "sincerity" is never a word you'd associate with her.
I know the counter argument is that it is only a movie and we shouldn't take it literally. But that's just it, by giving the film "real" characters and "real story" lines, the film makers are implying it is real. In fact, it is the very suggestion that it might be factual that draws the audiences in. Otherwise where would the attraction be of seeing a film about a fictional President's relationship with a fictional Prime Minster? Or a fictional queen's reaction to the death of a fictional daughter in law? There would be no attraction. So the makers have lured us paying public to part with our hard earned cash to see something that promises fact but instead delivers fiction.
So yes, I enjoyed the "story", but ended up resenting its total fiction.
The film implied that Frost had gotten Nixon to admit to something no-one else could (i.e. something illegal), thereby condemning himself to political wilderness. However, instead I was left feeling that Nixon was an OK guy - an intelligent, quick witted, sincere and strong guy who did what it took to get things done. Whereas Frost came across as a chancer, who was a bit lucky. At the end I wondered what the purpose of the movie was.
I have now seen the actual footage of the interviews and can only conclude that the movie's purpose was to show Nixon in a much more favourable light than he would've come across in the real interviews - because in the real interviews, he stinks. In the real interviews you can see the panic in his face, you can see the often painfully contrived shows of friendliness in his mannerisms and you can hear the uncoordinated logic of his answers. Whereas in the movie he's smooth with his answers and his mannerisms.
Any Brits out there should liken Nixon to our very own Gordon Brown - a man as bereft of any social attractiveness as Nixon. By getting Langella to play Nixon, it's like getting Alec Guiness to play Brown. I.e. a brilliant actor, but a million miles away from the truth.
And THAT'S the problem with these recent "real life" movies that focus on people in high offices of state - The Queen, The Special Relationship and now Frost/Nixon. The films make the people in high office appear to be totally articulate, very quick witted, sincere, at times funny and always strong in character and determination. Whereas the truth is anything but that. We've seen footage of a supposedly eloquent Clinton and he is anything but. We've seen the Queen deliver her speeches and "sincerity" is never a word you'd associate with her.
I know the counter argument is that it is only a movie and we shouldn't take it literally. But that's just it, by giving the film "real" characters and "real story" lines, the film makers are implying it is real. In fact, it is the very suggestion that it might be factual that draws the audiences in. Otherwise where would the attraction be of seeing a film about a fictional President's relationship with a fictional Prime Minster? Or a fictional queen's reaction to the death of a fictional daughter in law? There would be no attraction. So the makers have lured us paying public to part with our hard earned cash to see something that promises fact but instead delivers fiction.
So yes, I enjoyed the "story", but ended up resenting its total fiction.
Howard redeems himself with a truly compelling film that leaves its theatrical roots behind
motta80-216 October 2008
It is a testament to Peter Morgan's humility and skill as a writer and Ron Howard's ability to take a based on real events story to which the outcome is widely known and create a compelling "what will happen" drama (as he did with Apollo 13) that Frost/Nixon succeeds as a film.
This is a film based on a play that neither felt trapped in staginess nor weakly expanded with just the stage dialogue delivered exactly but in a variety of outdoor locales. I have to give Peter Morgan a lot of credit here. I saw the play in London and wondered throughout production of the film how they would escape its theatricality. Many recent films from plays like Proof, Closer, The Producers, have failed to throw off the shackles of stage feel. Not that all bad films, many served as a good way to see the play if you hadn't had the chance, but they weren't necessarily compelling films in their own right. What is so impressive about Morgan's work here is that in adapting his own play he has not been precious, he has not tried to enforce his already successful stage-play onto a film director he has wholly reworked it from beginning to end and yet retained all the gravity and drama that the play elicited. If you saw the play everything key is here and yet you can feel the difference the pacing is changed, the power achieved in different ways.
For this Howard also deserves credit. To have filmed the play as it was would have been disastrous on film one long two-hander scene after another, duelling narrators. And given the reverence the play has enjoyed a less experienced director could have fallen into this trap or that of simply changing the settings, but Howard knows when we need quick cuts, when a long drawn out piece that worked on stage needs to be reduced to a couple of lines and a post-scene reaction, and when he needs to hold with a scene and let it play between the two leads. This happens in several impressive moments in the latter half of the film.
For some this might constitute the films biggest flaw however. Morgan and Howard can't escape the fact that in the final stages of the film it is the head-to-head scenes of Frost and Nixon that are key and they must stay with them more. This is necessary, but it sadly means that the supporting players, so well established and broadened out to expand the scope in the first half, fall be the wayside. A superb Toby Jones as Irving 'Swifty' Lazar, Matthew Macfadyen as John Birt and always reliable Oliver Platt as Bob Zelnick all but disappear and only Kevin Bacon and Sam Rockwell play any significant role beyond the two leads in the final stages. This is a shame. It may best serve the story creating the sense of claustrophobia necessary to keep you gripped but it does feel like a film of two halves because of it and it noticeable.
Frank Langella and Michael Sheen are superb, as they were on stage, and Langella will take a lot of beating for the Oscar this year. There are many moments here when I was so involved I forgot I wasn't watching the real Nixon. It's not that he looks that like Nixon but he is so real you believe it completely and have to remind yourself you're watching an actor.
Platt is reliably Platt. Bacon is also his typically understated solid presence doing a lot with little. Toby Jones is fantastic in a small role instantly memorable; and Rebecca Hall builds on a series of strong performances. But in the supporting cast it is Rockwell that stands out. Sure, he has the most to do but he is completely in this role, he manages to sink into the role which is something he rarely does. He matches the skill he showed in Lawn Dogs and Confessions Of A Dangerous Mind here and it is great to see him back at his best.
I thoroughly recommend this film.
This is a film based on a play that neither felt trapped in staginess nor weakly expanded with just the stage dialogue delivered exactly but in a variety of outdoor locales. I have to give Peter Morgan a lot of credit here. I saw the play in London and wondered throughout production of the film how they would escape its theatricality. Many recent films from plays like Proof, Closer, The Producers, have failed to throw off the shackles of stage feel. Not that all bad films, many served as a good way to see the play if you hadn't had the chance, but they weren't necessarily compelling films in their own right. What is so impressive about Morgan's work here is that in adapting his own play he has not been precious, he has not tried to enforce his already successful stage-play onto a film director he has wholly reworked it from beginning to end and yet retained all the gravity and drama that the play elicited. If you saw the play everything key is here and yet you can feel the difference the pacing is changed, the power achieved in different ways.
For this Howard also deserves credit. To have filmed the play as it was would have been disastrous on film one long two-hander scene after another, duelling narrators. And given the reverence the play has enjoyed a less experienced director could have fallen into this trap or that of simply changing the settings, but Howard knows when we need quick cuts, when a long drawn out piece that worked on stage needs to be reduced to a couple of lines and a post-scene reaction, and when he needs to hold with a scene and let it play between the two leads. This happens in several impressive moments in the latter half of the film.
For some this might constitute the films biggest flaw however. Morgan and Howard can't escape the fact that in the final stages of the film it is the head-to-head scenes of Frost and Nixon that are key and they must stay with them more. This is necessary, but it sadly means that the supporting players, so well established and broadened out to expand the scope in the first half, fall be the wayside. A superb Toby Jones as Irving 'Swifty' Lazar, Matthew Macfadyen as John Birt and always reliable Oliver Platt as Bob Zelnick all but disappear and only Kevin Bacon and Sam Rockwell play any significant role beyond the two leads in the final stages. This is a shame. It may best serve the story creating the sense of claustrophobia necessary to keep you gripped but it does feel like a film of two halves because of it and it noticeable.
Frank Langella and Michael Sheen are superb, as they were on stage, and Langella will take a lot of beating for the Oscar this year. There are many moments here when I was so involved I forgot I wasn't watching the real Nixon. It's not that he looks that like Nixon but he is so real you believe it completely and have to remind yourself you're watching an actor.
Platt is reliably Platt. Bacon is also his typically understated solid presence doing a lot with little. Toby Jones is fantastic in a small role instantly memorable; and Rebecca Hall builds on a series of strong performances. But in the supporting cast it is Rockwell that stands out. Sure, he has the most to do but he is completely in this role, he manages to sink into the role which is something he rarely does. He matches the skill he showed in Lawn Dogs and Confessions Of A Dangerous Mind here and it is great to see him back at his best.
I thoroughly recommend this film.
'Frost/Nixon' - not what you think
janos45111 December 2008
I almost skipped "Frost/Nixon," and I am glad I didn't. It's eminently worthwhile, one of the year's few films that deserves to be seen.
My reluctance had to do with the expectation that it will offer nothing new to somebody who lived through the Watergate years and saw the Frost interviews (although remembering surprisingly little of them).
Ron Howard's film is anything but ho-hum - if anything it's a bit too gussied up to be exciting. There is an element of discernible manipulation of the audience, but mostly it works, and you don't long resist it.
The (relatively) unsung hero of the film besides Howard, Frank Langella's tremendous Nixon, and Michael Sheen's excellent Frost is the screenwriter: once again Peter Morgan (of "The Last King of Scotland" and "The Queen") engages mind and heart, and doesn't let go. Sam Rockwell's James Reston, Jr. and Oliver Platt's Bob Zelnick (Frost's two collaborators) are outstanding, and Kevin Bacon's Nixon-worshipping Jack Brennan is the actor's best work in a long time.
Morgan and Howard manage to make the viewer think constantly of another criminal President without saying or showing anything overt - they just let history, past and present, speak.
I had a strange, uncomfortable thought watching "Frost/Nixon": even if some future film "humanizes" (not excuses) Bush the way Nixon comes through this one, W. would still remain a malevolent midget against Nixon's accomplishments and actual *brain*. How far we have fallen.
My reluctance had to do with the expectation that it will offer nothing new to somebody who lived through the Watergate years and saw the Frost interviews (although remembering surprisingly little of them).
Ron Howard's film is anything but ho-hum - if anything it's a bit too gussied up to be exciting. There is an element of discernible manipulation of the audience, but mostly it works, and you don't long resist it.
The (relatively) unsung hero of the film besides Howard, Frank Langella's tremendous Nixon, and Michael Sheen's excellent Frost is the screenwriter: once again Peter Morgan (of "The Last King of Scotland" and "The Queen") engages mind and heart, and doesn't let go. Sam Rockwell's James Reston, Jr. and Oliver Platt's Bob Zelnick (Frost's two collaborators) are outstanding, and Kevin Bacon's Nixon-worshipping Jack Brennan is the actor's best work in a long time.
Morgan and Howard manage to make the viewer think constantly of another criminal President without saying or showing anything overt - they just let history, past and present, speak.
I had a strange, uncomfortable thought watching "Frost/Nixon": even if some future film "humanizes" (not excuses) Bush the way Nixon comes through this one, W. would still remain a malevolent midget against Nixon's accomplishments and actual *brain*. How far we have fallen.
Exceptional--especially for Langella's dynamite performance.
planktonrules12 September 2011
What I am about to say may sound a little mean. However, until recently I never took Frank Langella all that seriously as an actor. With film credits like "And God Created Woman" (1988), "Masters of the Universe" and "The 12 Chairs", I hadn't seen very much from him that was outstanding in any way. However, here in "Frost/Nixon" he demonstrates that my preconceptions was definitely wrong--he is a darn fine actor. His performance as Nixon was wonderful--especially when it COULD have come off as a parody--like Rich Little doing a Nixon impersonation. But, he was able to capture the man very well--and, provide a bit of insight into a very enigmatic man.
As for Michael Sheen, who co-starred and played David Frost, he was excellent as well--but he did not dominate the movie like Langella and really couldn't due to his character. Making Frost any different would have been unrealistic and the viewer is naturally drawn more to the Nixon character--even if they dislike him.
As for the movie, it's a film that is probably going to appeal to you more if you know a lot about the Watergate affair. This means that younger folks who didn't live through and remember the 1970s will get less out of it unless they know their history well. As for me, I'm a retired history teacher, so even if I was only a kid when Nixon resigned, I understand what had occurred and the figures involved. So, when names of the various people involved are mentioned or what exactly Nixon's involvement was in the cover-up are discussed, it would sure help to know the basics. If you are fuzzy on this, reading through Wikipedia or another website wouldn't hurt.
Looking at the film's box office receipts, I could assume that because Watergate is a rather distant memory is why the film made so little money. After all, the acting and writing certainly were not at issue--they were top-notch. And, I must also admit, the film was quite cerebral and there aren't a lot of things to appeal to teens or someone who likes explosions or raunchy comedies (you do get to see a gratuitous butt near the end, but this isn't enough to appeal to this crowd). An amazingly good film.
As for Michael Sheen, who co-starred and played David Frost, he was excellent as well--but he did not dominate the movie like Langella and really couldn't due to his character. Making Frost any different would have been unrealistic and the viewer is naturally drawn more to the Nixon character--even if they dislike him.
As for the movie, it's a film that is probably going to appeal to you more if you know a lot about the Watergate affair. This means that younger folks who didn't live through and remember the 1970s will get less out of it unless they know their history well. As for me, I'm a retired history teacher, so even if I was only a kid when Nixon resigned, I understand what had occurred and the figures involved. So, when names of the various people involved are mentioned or what exactly Nixon's involvement was in the cover-up are discussed, it would sure help to know the basics. If you are fuzzy on this, reading through Wikipedia or another website wouldn't hurt.
Looking at the film's box office receipts, I could assume that because Watergate is a rather distant memory is why the film made so little money. After all, the acting and writing certainly were not at issue--they were top-notch. And, I must also admit, the film was quite cerebral and there aren't a lot of things to appeal to teens or someone who likes explosions or raunchy comedies (you do get to see a gratuitous butt near the end, but this isn't enough to appeal to this crowd). An amazingly good film.
Who knows how accurate it is, but entertaining all the same
Mr-Fusion20 October 2016
"Frost/Nixon" was a curiosity for me; for one, I wanted to see Frank Langella as Richard Nixon, and the other reason is just to see how they'd distilled so many hours of interviews into a two-hour running time. I've never seen the original footage, so I can't speak to the film's accuracy, but it makes for great Hollywood dramatization nonetheless. Ron Howard frames it as a boxing match; an inexperienced journalist facing a veteran who knows how to run rungs around his opponent. Langella comes alive when he taps into Nixon's ferocity, and the movie really gets interesting when Michael Sheen stops soft-balling and goes on the attack. If you're going into this for two great performances, it excels on that basis alone.
7/10
7/10
David Frost vs. Goliath Nixon ...
ElMaruecan8214 July 2015
There's a brief but memorable moment in "Frost/Nixon" where one of Nixon's most ardent haters, a researcher played by Sam Rockwell, is about to confront for the first time the man he holds responsible for the destruction of American ideals. This is his time to shine and honor his opinions by not shaking the 'Shakers' hand. Yet, despite a brief hesitation, he gives both hand and respect. That says it all, there's the politician, there's the man, and one of the greatest tricks a corrupt one ever pulls is to hide behind the mask of friendliness.
No one can resist it, much less a TV audience. In my student's essay about the power of media -which is the film's essential theme- I wrote that the camera not only changes perceptions but actions too. As long as there is an instance of mediation between two people, something will cease to be natural, and the talent of those who control the media is to make it imperceptible. So, when Frost (Michael Sheen) decides to interview Nixon, with his own money because no American channel will accept to pay a British interviewer, he gives the fallen President a golden opportunity to talk to American people. Nixon (Frank Langella) advised by Swifty Lazar (Toby Jones) accepts the challenge, a TV show will reach the people quicker and simpler than a memoirs book.
It all comes to this : either Nixon shows a new shining image three years after the Watergate and his disastrous resignation, the only one in History, or Frost confronts a man to his responsibilities and forces him to admit his guilt. That's what Frost's partner John Birt (Matthew McFayden), Bob Zelnick, a TV journalist (Oliver Platt) and James Reston, Jr. (Rockwell) expect from the interview, anything but making Nixon sympathetic. With these opposite challenges, the premises could be that of a boxing match. And "Frost/Nixon" is indeed a duel (the slash is relevant) with no holds barred between huge and flawed egos, starting with Frost, a cocky womanizer trying to forget that he was basically exiled in Australia to host forgettable entertainment shows, the refusals from TV studios to sponsor his project will finish to teach him lessons of humility.
But Nixon plays in another league, being the epitome of 'unpopular culture', a tragic figure who destroyed what were left of American dreams, including his own. In 1995, Oliver Stone offered a remarkable view on Nixon, with no concession. Still, we couldn't help but feeling sympathy for a man entrapped by both his ideals and demons. The movie was remarkably served by Anthony Hopkins' performance but now, I wonder if it doesn't have something to do with the personality of Nixon himself, ambivalent to the best, with this mix of fascination and repulsion only great men achieve to inspire. Maybe he was the last 'larger-than-life' President. Anyway, he's not an amateur and during the interview, he's like Goliath ready to frost David.
Goliath Nixon also has a redoubtable right-hand man (Kevin Bacon) who works as an adviser and he knows himself the traps of TV, he whose sweating under the upper lip cost him the Presidential campaign in 1960, so he wouldn't make the same mistakes. David Frost IS the rookie and when the first interview (we might as well call it a round) starts, Frost bluntly opens with the Watergate "why didn't you burn the files?" Nixon is startled first but uses the question to pose as a victim of a system supported by his predecessors. Trying an uppercut, Frost was literally knocked down, tasting the toughness of an opponent who meant business. And as viewers, we're satisfied to see Frost put in his place for a moment, before he could recover.
The measure of the thrills provided by the interviews is because both have everything to win, yet so much to lose. Nixon is in a dead-end and any attempt to gain his popularity back is welcome, and by throwing himself in that crazy project, Frost lost his show, 600 000 dollars and jeopardized his career, maybe more and I'm not sure his newly conquered girlfriend, Caroline Cushing (Rebecca Hall) would've stayed longer with him. In her one shining moment that doesn't rely on her distractingly beautiful looks, she notices that Frost doesn't like being questioned. And that weakness shows with Nixon's offensive remarks before the interview, destabilizing him on his effeminate shoes or his 'masculine attitude' with Caroline. No holds barred indeed, the two men bet a lot in this interview, and it's like two destinies crossing one another.
The remarkable thing about Ron Howard's movie is that we all know it ended with a heartfelt confession from Nixon, one of the most memorable and defining TV moments of the 70's. But it's all in the process, on how Frost will finally take the edge over Nixon and find the vulnerable spots, or use his adversary's weapons against him, not through cynicism or aggressiveness but the true belief that his project is fair and for once, the variety show producer must act like a journalist. A man who failed as journalist must not interview the one who failed as a President. And this is why they were so close, yet so different from each other.
It is between the two men and the others are only spectators, filling the film with many interesting comments about the evolution of the match, and what lessons they learned from the confrontation. A man should feel important enough to believe in his rightness but never such as he can escape from his responsibilities. The lessons served both men, and the ending is twice happy as each one seemed to have triumphed over his demons. Sometimes, truth hurts, but how relieving it can also be!
No one can resist it, much less a TV audience. In my student's essay about the power of media -which is the film's essential theme- I wrote that the camera not only changes perceptions but actions too. As long as there is an instance of mediation between two people, something will cease to be natural, and the talent of those who control the media is to make it imperceptible. So, when Frost (Michael Sheen) decides to interview Nixon, with his own money because no American channel will accept to pay a British interviewer, he gives the fallen President a golden opportunity to talk to American people. Nixon (Frank Langella) advised by Swifty Lazar (Toby Jones) accepts the challenge, a TV show will reach the people quicker and simpler than a memoirs book.
It all comes to this : either Nixon shows a new shining image three years after the Watergate and his disastrous resignation, the only one in History, or Frost confronts a man to his responsibilities and forces him to admit his guilt. That's what Frost's partner John Birt (Matthew McFayden), Bob Zelnick, a TV journalist (Oliver Platt) and James Reston, Jr. (Rockwell) expect from the interview, anything but making Nixon sympathetic. With these opposite challenges, the premises could be that of a boxing match. And "Frost/Nixon" is indeed a duel (the slash is relevant) with no holds barred between huge and flawed egos, starting with Frost, a cocky womanizer trying to forget that he was basically exiled in Australia to host forgettable entertainment shows, the refusals from TV studios to sponsor his project will finish to teach him lessons of humility.
But Nixon plays in another league, being the epitome of 'unpopular culture', a tragic figure who destroyed what were left of American dreams, including his own. In 1995, Oliver Stone offered a remarkable view on Nixon, with no concession. Still, we couldn't help but feeling sympathy for a man entrapped by both his ideals and demons. The movie was remarkably served by Anthony Hopkins' performance but now, I wonder if it doesn't have something to do with the personality of Nixon himself, ambivalent to the best, with this mix of fascination and repulsion only great men achieve to inspire. Maybe he was the last 'larger-than-life' President. Anyway, he's not an amateur and during the interview, he's like Goliath ready to frost David.
Goliath Nixon also has a redoubtable right-hand man (Kevin Bacon) who works as an adviser and he knows himself the traps of TV, he whose sweating under the upper lip cost him the Presidential campaign in 1960, so he wouldn't make the same mistakes. David Frost IS the rookie and when the first interview (we might as well call it a round) starts, Frost bluntly opens with the Watergate "why didn't you burn the files?" Nixon is startled first but uses the question to pose as a victim of a system supported by his predecessors. Trying an uppercut, Frost was literally knocked down, tasting the toughness of an opponent who meant business. And as viewers, we're satisfied to see Frost put in his place for a moment, before he could recover.
The measure of the thrills provided by the interviews is because both have everything to win, yet so much to lose. Nixon is in a dead-end and any attempt to gain his popularity back is welcome, and by throwing himself in that crazy project, Frost lost his show, 600 000 dollars and jeopardized his career, maybe more and I'm not sure his newly conquered girlfriend, Caroline Cushing (Rebecca Hall) would've stayed longer with him. In her one shining moment that doesn't rely on her distractingly beautiful looks, she notices that Frost doesn't like being questioned. And that weakness shows with Nixon's offensive remarks before the interview, destabilizing him on his effeminate shoes or his 'masculine attitude' with Caroline. No holds barred indeed, the two men bet a lot in this interview, and it's like two destinies crossing one another.
The remarkable thing about Ron Howard's movie is that we all know it ended with a heartfelt confession from Nixon, one of the most memorable and defining TV moments of the 70's. But it's all in the process, on how Frost will finally take the edge over Nixon and find the vulnerable spots, or use his adversary's weapons against him, not through cynicism or aggressiveness but the true belief that his project is fair and for once, the variety show producer must act like a journalist. A man who failed as journalist must not interview the one who failed as a President. And this is why they were so close, yet so different from each other.
It is between the two men and the others are only spectators, filling the film with many interesting comments about the evolution of the match, and what lessons they learned from the confrontation. A man should feel important enough to believe in his rightness but never such as he can escape from his responsibilities. The lessons served both men, and the ending is twice happy as each one seemed to have triumphed over his demons. Sometimes, truth hurts, but how relieving it can also be!
A Solid Film That Will Fade Into the Background
alexkolokotronis29 January 2009
Frost/Nixon was indeed a good movie but the question is "will it stand the test of time?". I seriously doubt it. The performances are admirable and the writing is very good but I was not overly impressed compared to other movies I have seen.
The acting was good throughout the cast. Frank Langella was good but not spectacular as Richard Nixon. In my mind I will have Anthony Hopkins as Nixon not Langella. In Nixon strange emotions were brought up towards the man himself, in here Nixon seems to be quite a very good man. This I had a problem with, I liked the approach of him not being shown as an evil man but I did not like the fact he appeared to better than he was. I felt that Michael Sheen stole the show from Langella and in fact played better than him. His performance was more diverse and versatile and of course the movie is about him interviewing Nixon not Nixon interviewing Frost.
The directing was solid as usual of Ron Howard. Yet with the character of Nixon he seemed to be pushing the idea of sympathy upon us for Richard Nixon. When it comes to feeling emotions such as sympathy, it should not be pushed upon you. Many scenes though were quite intense but this movie was carried by the writing of Peter Morgan. The nice quick dialog between the characters is what really set the tone of the film above all.
I liked Frost/Nixon but it is not a powerful movie. It sets a good tone at the beginning and stays with it throughout. Like other Ron Howard movies it doesn't take a giant leap of greatness. It does have moments of greatness and a few memorable scenes but not enough to really stand the test of time. I do not believe it deserves its best picture, best director or best actor nominations as other men and movies have had more powerful and affecting influence this year.
The acting was good throughout the cast. Frank Langella was good but not spectacular as Richard Nixon. In my mind I will have Anthony Hopkins as Nixon not Langella. In Nixon strange emotions were brought up towards the man himself, in here Nixon seems to be quite a very good man. This I had a problem with, I liked the approach of him not being shown as an evil man but I did not like the fact he appeared to better than he was. I felt that Michael Sheen stole the show from Langella and in fact played better than him. His performance was more diverse and versatile and of course the movie is about him interviewing Nixon not Nixon interviewing Frost.
The directing was solid as usual of Ron Howard. Yet with the character of Nixon he seemed to be pushing the idea of sympathy upon us for Richard Nixon. When it comes to feeling emotions such as sympathy, it should not be pushed upon you. Many scenes though were quite intense but this movie was carried by the writing of Peter Morgan. The nice quick dialog between the characters is what really set the tone of the film above all.
I liked Frost/Nixon but it is not a powerful movie. It sets a good tone at the beginning and stays with it throughout. Like other Ron Howard movies it doesn't take a giant leap of greatness. It does have moments of greatness and a few memorable scenes but not enough to really stand the test of time. I do not believe it deserves its best picture, best director or best actor nominations as other men and movies have had more powerful and affecting influence this year.
Much less than it could have been
hpmc613 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
It's still probably worth seeing, I like 20th century American history stuff a lot, so I had a great interest in the topic. I'll give it a 6 because the subject is worthwhile, and it's not pure junk like a lot of movies out there. But it was a really flat one dimensional portrayal of what is in fact, a fascinating subject - a duel between a British interviewer and one of the USA's most fascinating presidents.
The best acting was the Frost character. And the movie dos do a good job of portraying what he put on the line, as well as the 'winner take all' nature of the duel. His underlings were very unlikable characters, although one of them did convey the single minded 'get Nixon' negativity that many people had at the time, and a lot of people were happy to move on from.
The first half of the movie is really pretty boring. It was a completely missed opportunity to better portray who Nixon was, and what he had on the line. Love him, hate him, despise or respect him, he was a fascinating character. A lot of people seeing this movie are too young to remember him, and those older still have things they can learn. Just looking on hulu last night, I found stuff on Nixon I'd never seen before
hulu.com nbc-news-time-capsule-richard-m-nixon-in-his-own-words
does anyone think that some of this material wouldn't have given this movie more depth in the first half, and could have replaced some of the 'fluff'? The whole movie can be pretty much summed up by 'does Frost get Nixon, or not?', which may have been the primary issue in the interviews, but certainly not all of it. Most people, including myself, already thought he was guilty - what difference does it really make whether he admits it or not? The acting of Nixon is mixed - I thought it was very weak in the beginning, but did come together more at the end, as did the movie - the movie does at least, improve and come together at the end.
But there was more to those interviews than 'slipping up and confessing Watergate'. These interviews, like Nixon himself, had more than the one dimension of Watergate. It was a capstone of one of the most significant players (whether he was a good guy, or not) of the Cold War, a potential nuclear conflict that was the biggest threat humanity has ever known This movie completely missed that.
The best acting was the Frost character. And the movie dos do a good job of portraying what he put on the line, as well as the 'winner take all' nature of the duel. His underlings were very unlikable characters, although one of them did convey the single minded 'get Nixon' negativity that many people had at the time, and a lot of people were happy to move on from.
The first half of the movie is really pretty boring. It was a completely missed opportunity to better portray who Nixon was, and what he had on the line. Love him, hate him, despise or respect him, he was a fascinating character. A lot of people seeing this movie are too young to remember him, and those older still have things they can learn. Just looking on hulu last night, I found stuff on Nixon I'd never seen before
hulu.com nbc-news-time-capsule-richard-m-nixon-in-his-own-words
does anyone think that some of this material wouldn't have given this movie more depth in the first half, and could have replaced some of the 'fluff'? The whole movie can be pretty much summed up by 'does Frost get Nixon, or not?', which may have been the primary issue in the interviews, but certainly not all of it. Most people, including myself, already thought he was guilty - what difference does it really make whether he admits it or not? The acting of Nixon is mixed - I thought it was very weak in the beginning, but did come together more at the end, as did the movie - the movie does at least, improve and come together at the end.
But there was more to those interviews than 'slipping up and confessing Watergate'. These interviews, like Nixon himself, had more than the one dimension of Watergate. It was a capstone of one of the most significant players (whether he was a good guy, or not) of the Cold War, a potential nuclear conflict that was the biggest threat humanity has ever known This movie completely missed that.
Entertaining and Rich, Howard's Best
Simon_Says_Movies15 January 2009
Movies centered on politics are often interesting on an intellectual level, but never has a film of such an ilk been so thoroughly entertaining. Director Ron Howard's adaptation of the stage play of the same name, manages to both stay loyal to the true events that served as inspiration, yet infuses it with life and achieves the utmost level of satisfaction without compromising the rich and weighty subject matter. Infused with sensational performances throughout, Howard has delivered what I think is his best film yet.
Beginning with President Richard Nixon's (Frank Langella reprising his role from the play) resignation following the Watergate scandal, the movie jumps to a few years later where the ex-president has been demoted to giving talks at luncheons, and interviews for money. Meanwhile down under in Australia, a wildly popular talk show host named David Frost (Michael Sheen) comes up with the ultimate publicity stunt; winch out the confession the American people never got from their former president. Nixon has other plans however, seeing only easy money for answering some fluff questions over a four day period. Frost assembles a team of researchers and experts including Sam Rockwell as James Reston Jr., Mathew McFayden as John Burt and Oliver Platt as Bob Zelnick to ensure his suave defeat of his opponent and secure their place in infamy.
Frost/Nixon succeeds in overcoming a number of hurdles. It flourishes, even if you have no knowledge of the events of Watergate, or have no interest in American politics, but will thrill those who do. From what I understand, certain liberties were taken with the facts surrounding the endlessly notorious interviews, but more often then not, Frost/Nixon is less of a political film, then it is a sword and shield bout to the death; an intense duel between these two intellectuals, and how their confidence and overconfidence sways the interviews in both their favours before the gripping final outcome
Frank Langella is sure to get an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of the infamous president, but Michael Sheen should by no means be overlooked. He is equally solid, and to some extent has the more difficult role; in keeping his own against the veteran stage actors larger then life embodiment of the president. We also get fantastic supporting work from Kevin Bacon as Nixon's aid who's two-fold admiration and quiet pity and embarrassment is tragic and very affecting. From a visual standpoint, Howard's film is glossy and superbly shot without feeling to large in its scope. It is intimate and immediate with a keen sense of the times.
Perhaps the biggest achievement of the movie is the handling of the Nixon character. Howard manages to capture both his corruptness and smug pompousness while showing him as a true human; with some sympathy but mostly just not as a faceless monster and without a blunt bias. So don't be turned away simply because of the films 'political' backbone, because Frost/Nixon is some of the most simultaneously intelligent and entertaining film-making of the decade.
9.5 / 10.0
Read all my reviews at : http://simonsaysmovies.blogspot.com
Beginning with President Richard Nixon's (Frank Langella reprising his role from the play) resignation following the Watergate scandal, the movie jumps to a few years later where the ex-president has been demoted to giving talks at luncheons, and interviews for money. Meanwhile down under in Australia, a wildly popular talk show host named David Frost (Michael Sheen) comes up with the ultimate publicity stunt; winch out the confession the American people never got from their former president. Nixon has other plans however, seeing only easy money for answering some fluff questions over a four day period. Frost assembles a team of researchers and experts including Sam Rockwell as James Reston Jr., Mathew McFayden as John Burt and Oliver Platt as Bob Zelnick to ensure his suave defeat of his opponent and secure their place in infamy.
Frost/Nixon succeeds in overcoming a number of hurdles. It flourishes, even if you have no knowledge of the events of Watergate, or have no interest in American politics, but will thrill those who do. From what I understand, certain liberties were taken with the facts surrounding the endlessly notorious interviews, but more often then not, Frost/Nixon is less of a political film, then it is a sword and shield bout to the death; an intense duel between these two intellectuals, and how their confidence and overconfidence sways the interviews in both their favours before the gripping final outcome
Frank Langella is sure to get an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of the infamous president, but Michael Sheen should by no means be overlooked. He is equally solid, and to some extent has the more difficult role; in keeping his own against the veteran stage actors larger then life embodiment of the president. We also get fantastic supporting work from Kevin Bacon as Nixon's aid who's two-fold admiration and quiet pity and embarrassment is tragic and very affecting. From a visual standpoint, Howard's film is glossy and superbly shot without feeling to large in its scope. It is intimate and immediate with a keen sense of the times.
Perhaps the biggest achievement of the movie is the handling of the Nixon character. Howard manages to capture both his corruptness and smug pompousness while showing him as a true human; with some sympathy but mostly just not as a faceless monster and without a blunt bias. So don't be turned away simply because of the films 'political' backbone, because Frost/Nixon is some of the most simultaneously intelligent and entertaining film-making of the decade.
9.5 / 10.0
Read all my reviews at : http://simonsaysmovies.blogspot.com
Lights, Camera... Talking
jackk27863 February 2009
You could be forgiven for having been completely unaware of the interviews between talk- show host David Frost and disgraced ex-US President Richard Nixon before the publicity blitz of this film. However, director Ron Howard and screenwriter Peter Morgan would want you to think that it was one of the most important moments for politics, journalism and basically American culture in modern history, and are willing to spend two hours to convince you of just that. Whether or not you end up believing them is one thing, but you can't doubt their tenacity and the fact that they very nearly succeed is thanks in no small part to the committed cast, particularly (and unsurprisingly) Michael Sheen and Frank Langella, who serve as the titular acting duet.
Langella may be the one getting all the attention for his stooping, roaring performance as the proud, dying lion that is Richard Nixon, and it is easy to see why. Mimicry being what mimicry is, he naturally and effectively disappears inside the role, and the entire film seems built to serve his performance (even pointing it out as Frost is criticized by his team for allowing Nixon to dominate the early interviews). However, it is Michael Sheen who quietly steals the film away from him, not only bringing the much needed pathos to a film that could otherwise have just been two arrogant men talking to one-another, but also imbuing the film with a surprising lightness of touch. In particular, the early scenes establishing Frost's character the loud suits, the self-assured flirting, the ridiculous celebrity embellishments are very funny in Sheen's capable grasp. It seems at first that he may just be doing his Tony Blair again, the role that made him famous in both The Deal and The Queen, but so sleight is Sheen's hand that you won't notice as the cocky smile weakens and the shifty eyes deepen that he has turned the character completely inside-out.
While the film is all about Frost and Nixon, however, with a cast featuring such heavyweight character actors as Sam Rockwell and Oliver Platt, there is some great acting from the sidelines as well, and it all serves as a welcome distraction from the weight of Peter Morgan's screenplay, which is almost as self-aggrandizing as David Frost himself. Morgan is a fine writer, and as he has proved with The Queen and The Last King Of Scotland, he is extremely adept at making engrossing stories and compelling characters out of episodes of history that wouldn't immediately seem to lend themselves to theatricalising. Along with Ron Howard, himself a consistently strong, adept filmmaker, he has created an absorbing, well-paced tale (apart from the misjudged documentary structure it has given itself), successfully finding character arcs in what is a very talky piece as the publicity-hungry Frost soon begins to realise that his selfish reasons for wanting to conduct the interviews fame and fortune in America pale in comparison to what his team, and the entire American public, expect of them the trial Nixon never had to face over the Watergate Scandal.
However, Morgan is ultimately unable to escape from the inherent problems that the story itself brings with it. The film obviously fancies itself a call for the necessities of journalism on this age of Fox News, or a topical parable about a despised ex-President marred in scandal being brought to justice (how many Americans must wish that someone like David Frost was around nowadays?) but there is no ignoring the fact that the Frost/Nixon interviews were merely a relatively inconsequential event here being treated as if they were life-and-death.
For more of this review, or reviews like it, visit:
jacksfilmblog at blogspot.com
Langella may be the one getting all the attention for his stooping, roaring performance as the proud, dying lion that is Richard Nixon, and it is easy to see why. Mimicry being what mimicry is, he naturally and effectively disappears inside the role, and the entire film seems built to serve his performance (even pointing it out as Frost is criticized by his team for allowing Nixon to dominate the early interviews). However, it is Michael Sheen who quietly steals the film away from him, not only bringing the much needed pathos to a film that could otherwise have just been two arrogant men talking to one-another, but also imbuing the film with a surprising lightness of touch. In particular, the early scenes establishing Frost's character the loud suits, the self-assured flirting, the ridiculous celebrity embellishments are very funny in Sheen's capable grasp. It seems at first that he may just be doing his Tony Blair again, the role that made him famous in both The Deal and The Queen, but so sleight is Sheen's hand that you won't notice as the cocky smile weakens and the shifty eyes deepen that he has turned the character completely inside-out.
While the film is all about Frost and Nixon, however, with a cast featuring such heavyweight character actors as Sam Rockwell and Oliver Platt, there is some great acting from the sidelines as well, and it all serves as a welcome distraction from the weight of Peter Morgan's screenplay, which is almost as self-aggrandizing as David Frost himself. Morgan is a fine writer, and as he has proved with The Queen and The Last King Of Scotland, he is extremely adept at making engrossing stories and compelling characters out of episodes of history that wouldn't immediately seem to lend themselves to theatricalising. Along with Ron Howard, himself a consistently strong, adept filmmaker, he has created an absorbing, well-paced tale (apart from the misjudged documentary structure it has given itself), successfully finding character arcs in what is a very talky piece as the publicity-hungry Frost soon begins to realise that his selfish reasons for wanting to conduct the interviews fame and fortune in America pale in comparison to what his team, and the entire American public, expect of them the trial Nixon never had to face over the Watergate Scandal.
However, Morgan is ultimately unable to escape from the inherent problems that the story itself brings with it. The film obviously fancies itself a call for the necessities of journalism on this age of Fox News, or a topical parable about a despised ex-President marred in scandal being brought to justice (how many Americans must wish that someone like David Frost was around nowadays?) but there is no ignoring the fact that the Frost/Nixon interviews were merely a relatively inconsequential event here being treated as if they were life-and-death.
For more of this review, or reviews like it, visit:
jacksfilmblog at blogspot.com
Not what I was hoping for
phllpkng9 January 2009
Frank Langella was brilliant as Nixon and manages to give you a small insight into Nixon, the man, as much as Nixon the president. For me that was the high point of the film. David Frost was shown as a playboy and an inept interviewer which I don't believe he ever was. I think was done to 'meat out' the film a little, to give it more of a story, which is a shame. Micheal sheen, had a hard job playing David Frost because there was a real danger of slipping into a 'Hello, Good evening and Welcome' caricature of Mr Frost which he just manages to steer clear of.
For me as a Brit, the film never worked, American viewers will look at it differently perhaps. I can't see how you can't base a whole film on one scene, which is what this film is about. As a stage play I expect it was brilliant but as a film....no.
For me as a Brit, the film never worked, American viewers will look at it differently perhaps. I can't see how you can't base a whole film on one scene, which is what this film is about. As a stage play I expect it was brilliant but as a film....no.
An extraordinary film
tranquilbuddha2 December 2008
Frank Langella's performance as Nixon is truly moving in this remarkable film by Ron Howard, which gripped me for its entirety. As someone who grew up during the Watergate hearings, and who reviled Nixon as the embodiment not just of corruption but of the worst kind of interventionist, even genocidal, American politics, this film gives substance to a man who, in later years (especially the GW Bush years, which make Nixon look like a political and intellectual colossus), achieved something of a place in history beyond the scandal of Watergate.
But what Frost/Nixon - and in particular Langella - does is give humanity to the man. We see his arrogance, his love of power, his need to win (hinted at wonderfully in a moment when he is jogging in his San Clemente home to rousing music), but we also see his inner conflicts, his regrets, the fact that perhaps more than simply his crimes regarding Watergate haunted him - that the impact of his decisions on South East Asia were not entirely remote from him, either. And in a sequence that I will not reveal, to avoid spoiling the plot, we also see a hint of his madness, for it is that, I think, rather than senility. (You have to see it to understand this.)
Ron Howard and playwright/screenwriter Peter Morgan have achieved a remarkable feat in adapting the stage play, which sadly I did not see. Not for a moment does this feel stage bound; instead it is a compelling human portrait of two men - for Frost is fascinating, too, and Michael Sheen captures both his much criticized (at the time) surface gloss and also his deeper fears - but above all of the impact that each of our decisions, large and small, and not least if you are leader of the "Free World," have on us all.
But what Frost/Nixon - and in particular Langella - does is give humanity to the man. We see his arrogance, his love of power, his need to win (hinted at wonderfully in a moment when he is jogging in his San Clemente home to rousing music), but we also see his inner conflicts, his regrets, the fact that perhaps more than simply his crimes regarding Watergate haunted him - that the impact of his decisions on South East Asia were not entirely remote from him, either. And in a sequence that I will not reveal, to avoid spoiling the plot, we also see a hint of his madness, for it is that, I think, rather than senility. (You have to see it to understand this.)
Ron Howard and playwright/screenwriter Peter Morgan have achieved a remarkable feat in adapting the stage play, which sadly I did not see. Not for a moment does this feel stage bound; instead it is a compelling human portrait of two men - for Frost is fascinating, too, and Michael Sheen captures both his much criticized (at the time) surface gloss and also his deeper fears - but above all of the impact that each of our decisions, large and small, and not least if you are leader of the "Free World," have on us all.
Excellent duel of real characters and great performances
Rodrigo_Amaro1 February 2011
Nixon might had lied countless times but this film doesn't, except for some artistic license or other that is necessary to make the story more spicy or to fill a drama and tension that might have never existed during the famous Frost/Nixon interview.
Ron Howard directs "Frost/Nixon" a thrilling story with the behind the scenes of one of the most famous broadcasts ever presented in television, and that is the meeting between Former President Richard Nixon (Frank Langella) and English TV host David Frost (Michael Sheen) after the President's impeachment. This meeting will be just like a long awaited boxing match between two heavyweights and it will take all of their power, intelligence and courage to make of this event something memorable and it will be memorable. Behind these two fearless men there's a great team assisting, played by Kevin Bacon, Sam Rockwell, Matthew McFayden, Rebecca Hall, Oliver Platt and Toby Jones.
Transforming a play of success into a film is a very difficult job but writer Peter Morgan adapted it perfectly, with wonderful dialogs exchange between Sheen and Langella and all the actors, balancing drama, comedy, heated discussions, and of course, using quotes of the real interview, one of the most successful events ever presented on TV, very historical.
Allied with a magnificent screenplay there's a highest quality of the performances. Langella might sound and look like a Nixon caricature but he manages to portray the President in his emotional and darker sides, a figure that needs to be doing something useful other than just be a retired politician, always in the arena even if that arena is a TV show where he might get trapped with his demons, face to face with the American public. Sheen makes of his Frost a entertaining man who gives a leap into a whole new field (a serious interview with a former president) where he needs to find a way to survive or win what could be the battle for his career, his reputation, but more than that he wants to be a star in America making the interview of the Century. Two men without their masks in front of a whole audience trying to win a battle where the winners are us the viewers delighted with such incredible moments. The supporting cast is top-notch and is amazing to see all of them together in such a brilliant project.
Explosive in its content, thrilling in its presentations without losing the rhythm and the movement, "Frost/Nixon" comes as one of the most absorbing films ever made. It was everything I expected and more! Brilliant! 10/10
Ron Howard directs "Frost/Nixon" a thrilling story with the behind the scenes of one of the most famous broadcasts ever presented in television, and that is the meeting between Former President Richard Nixon (Frank Langella) and English TV host David Frost (Michael Sheen) after the President's impeachment. This meeting will be just like a long awaited boxing match between two heavyweights and it will take all of their power, intelligence and courage to make of this event something memorable and it will be memorable. Behind these two fearless men there's a great team assisting, played by Kevin Bacon, Sam Rockwell, Matthew McFayden, Rebecca Hall, Oliver Platt and Toby Jones.
Transforming a play of success into a film is a very difficult job but writer Peter Morgan adapted it perfectly, with wonderful dialogs exchange between Sheen and Langella and all the actors, balancing drama, comedy, heated discussions, and of course, using quotes of the real interview, one of the most successful events ever presented on TV, very historical.
Allied with a magnificent screenplay there's a highest quality of the performances. Langella might sound and look like a Nixon caricature but he manages to portray the President in his emotional and darker sides, a figure that needs to be doing something useful other than just be a retired politician, always in the arena even if that arena is a TV show where he might get trapped with his demons, face to face with the American public. Sheen makes of his Frost a entertaining man who gives a leap into a whole new field (a serious interview with a former president) where he needs to find a way to survive or win what could be the battle for his career, his reputation, but more than that he wants to be a star in America making the interview of the Century. Two men without their masks in front of a whole audience trying to win a battle where the winners are us the viewers delighted with such incredible moments. The supporting cast is top-notch and is amazing to see all of them together in such a brilliant project.
Explosive in its content, thrilling in its presentations without losing the rhythm and the movement, "Frost/Nixon" comes as one of the most absorbing films ever made. It was everything I expected and more! Brilliant! 10/10
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
