Load of rubbish!!

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Oliver Stone presents Nixon in a positive, sympathetic light. Nixon is seen as the conditioned victim of his family circumstances and rigorous upbringing. Behind all his actions as a grown man, you are encouraged to see a hurt and bewildered small boy. In spite of this, he personifies dogged determination.Oliver Stone's judgement was seriously inspired when he cast Nixon. If I thought long and hard, I could probably not come up with a better choice than Anthony Hopkins, one of the greatest actors of this age. Richard Nixon and Anthony Hopkins share an approximate similarity of appearance, but where Hopkins scores is in his mastery of articulation and verbal timing. Not long into the movie Hopkins acquires the persona of Nixon, without specifically imitating him.Anthony Hopkins was so good, I watched the film several times. I believe Stone rejected a motley group of several other contenders for the role, before wisely settling on Hopkins as his ideal. He must have been exceptionally pleased with the result.Stone includes memories from Nixon's childhood up through and past the Watergate scandal. Clearly, numerous film actors wanted to be in this movie, for obvious reasons. It's an outstanding production, and anyone who watches it will be given an unusually fine history lesson. It stays in the mind. I strongly recommend it: give it a close watch ! It's a bit long, so I dock one star.

Richard Nixon is one of the most controversial heads of state of the twentieth century. During his tenure as president of the United States, he earned a general hatred almost as high as the power and influence of his office. He was investigated, vilified, attacked but never condemned. Even though I'm not an American nor an expert of these period, I feel it is necessary to make an unbiased and objective historical analysis of this president, I just don't know if that has already happened. Even so, the film we have here didn't seem partial, trying to remain neutral to some extent.Directed by Oliver Stone, it's not appropriate for people who don't know anything about Nixon, or Watergate, or this period of American history, since the film wasn't wasting time explaining anything. So if you didn't understand why Nixon opened the US to China or what was the Watergate or the Bay of Pigs, I suggest you ignore the movie for now and first go read some books or see some documentaries about it. Another problem I want to highlight is the huge web of conspiracies and obscure theories that the film weaves around the president. It never lets us understand what "crimes of responsibility" Nixon has committed. The film also suggests, without subtleties, that Nixon was a simple man who rose in life but wasn't accepted by the "American aristocracy" because of this humble origin, which left him deeply hurt. I don't know if it's true, but the film indicates that as origin of President's lack of scruples.Anthony Hopkins assures the main role in an interesting performance, but that's far from being his best. He made a good preparation and tried his best to be Nixon, but has few physical similarities with him, not to mention his extreme difficulty in imitating president's characteristic voice. Anyway, Hopkins was brilliant at his character's psychological work, with most dramatic scenes going on as he, semi-drunk, reviews his decisions while listening to his famous audio tapes. The remaining cast does a reasonable supporting work. I will not close my review without left a word of appreciation to the sets and costumes, which rebuilt the atmosphere and culture of the Seventies quite well, much like the rooms and offices within White House. Not being exceptional, it's an elegant, quality film, that helps us think about an important period in American history.

President Richard Nixon (Anthony Hopkins) frets over the tapes as he is harassed by calls of impeachment. We are brought back to when he loses the election to JFK. He is left for politically dead as he blames the media. He has his supporters especially the Cuba contingent. Eventually he gets his opening to fight another day. There are also flashbacks to his childhood as Oliver Stone tries to weave a portrait of the man.This is a political epic about one man. It definitely has Stone's cinematic skills but it is also filled with his personal point of view. It is noticeable which puts some of the movie's validity to question. However, there is no questioning the compelling performance by Hopkins. He is a flawed man always fighting enemies. It's a great performance. The movie is a bit long at over three hours. It's trying to span such a vast period of time and the man lived a big life.

Honestly folks, I really went into this movie with a lot of hope. My friend and I watched JFK when we were 16 and were blown away. We became conspiracy geeks for a couple of years after seeing it. But by the time this movie came out we had already done a lot of homework on the JFK conspiracy and found out that Oliver Stones JFK was filled with a lot of speculation made to look like facts. We were a little more skeptical of this Oliver Stone movie knowing we were somewhat duped by his last picture. We had done a lot of studying on Nixon and Watergate and knew quite a bit about what had happened. Truthfully, Stone went even further this time in assassinating Nixons character and the truth in general. I look back on movies like JFK and Nixon and it pisses me off like nothing else that someone can manipulate the facts like this man has! He has misinformed sooo many people who don't do their homework and take what this movie presents as the absolute truth. What really bothers me is that Hollywood thought this boring, pathetic movie that tries to manipulate its audience into believing "facts" about Nixon and Watergate is simply political hogwash! Why else would a movie that was very boring and hard to follow given so much attention? Honestly people, aside from Michael Moore and his "ficticious documentaries" (if there can be such a genre), Stone is a lot like the snake in the garden = Present you with something that looks good, but is all lies and manipulation in the end. Even if your a liberal, don't bother with this politically bias crap. Using this movie to bolster your argument will only make you ignorant in the end.