Instant Favorite.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

This is a pretty captivating film portraying the early life and presidency of Richard Nixon. Saw it in school and remembered it to be a good retelling of history. Good acting by Anthony Hopkins on the part of President Nixon, and a good overview of his early life to important moments in history, like his dealings with Communist China. Grade B

realistic. direct. giving not exactly the traits of a political man but one of the inspired views of power. because it is a story about power. simple. cruel, mix of fear and crumbs of selfishness. about a man reduced at himself. the roots of a fall. an image of America. a huge conspiracy for control. fragments of childhood. and Anthony Hopkins as the best choice for a role who seems be the mix of Shakespeare and Dostoievski dark heroes. and, sure, Oliver Stone. as a fascinating searcher of the truth. as author of a chronicle of America. a honest one. a chronicle like a large open window. and the waves of fresh air.

This is another movie I could not finish. And I am one of those guys who stays to the bitter end of every movie. I see it as almost a badge of honor. But there are 4 movies I have failed in the last two years, and this is one of them.I don't think Nixon was an especially bad movie. I just could not get into it. There was a lot of dialogue, but I could never figure out who was doing the talking and what their significance to the story was. That was the first problem. Huge cast of characters, but I was not familiar enough with the events with which they were associated or with who they were supposed to be to be able to follow along. In addition, the movie had a few flash-backs and fast-forwards, which didn't help in sorting things out.The second problem was that Anthony Hopkins just didn't look like Richard Nixon. He did his typical fine performance, but in this movie, acting was not enough. Richard Nixon's appearance is so distinctive that there is no way you can sort of look like him. You either do, or you don't. Nixon's sharp features preclude him from being well-represented by only a close resemblance. All they gave Hopkins was Nixon's type II pattern baldness hairline. I watched scene after scene with seemingly random people who I couldn't keep straight and this old sad-sack that was always right in the middle of them. I had to keep reminding myself that the sad sack was supposed to be Richard Nixon.As stated earlier, I don't think this was an especially bad movie. For me, it just did not flow well. I had to help it along, and with its confusing cast of characters that became too great a struggle. I'm not sure when I turned it off, but I think it was after over 2 hours of watching. I'm sure I was near the end and I probably could have finished it, but I was so confused by that time that I didn't see the point.After thinking back, the movie plays more like a documentary than a vehicle for entertainment. It is heavy on facts and history and might be more suited to students of political history. It is a thinking person's movie. Maybe that was my problem. I was just looking for something to relax to before I went to bed. You have to be prepared to work to get through this one. A suggestion might be for you to Google Nixon before watching it to get some background refreshers. Or maybe you just need to be older than I am. I think if you were a politically-aware adult in the early 70s you'd probably have enough knowledge to be able to follow this film. But I was only in second grade when I learned that President Nixon was going to have peaches.

Without doubt Anthony Hopkins performance as Richard Nixon cements his position as one of the finest and most powerful actors of the last 20 years. Without bearing any great resemblance, he gets closer to inhabiting the almost impenetrable enigma that was Nixon than any other actor could do. Looking beyond his towering portrayal, the performances of the supporting cast are mostly exemplary. You just know that James Woods and JT Walsh were born to play Haldeman and Ehrlichman. Ed Harris is a chilling Howard Hunt, Mary Steenburgen a dedicated but controlled and ultimately unaffectionate mother, Powers Boothe a loyal but pragmatic Al Haig, Bob Hoskins a thoroughly devious J Edgar Hoover and Madeleine Kahn a delightfully outspoken Martha Mitchell. If I had to quibble I would say that Joan Allen makes Pat Nixon a far steelier character than she probably was and EG Marshall is too old to play John Mitchell. Oliver Stone does not play too fast and loose with the real story and endeavours to explore Nixon's childhood and other events in his life to try to explain what what made him what he became. Occasionally he is more sympathetic than one might have expected. The use of black and white is overdone, although real footage is skilfully interlaced with the acting. But the ultimate triumph is Hopkins' performance.