ChicDragon
It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.
Guillelmina
The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.
outpix
Perhaps a more true representation of the FBI's role in Watergate, this dreary heavy handed film never gets going. Like a derailed train it's stuck never going anywhere interesting. I refer you to "All the President's Men" for an excellent dramatical representation of the scandal.
suemarum
I didn't wink through out the whole movie! Great actors, the plot, the tension! Made we want to read about Watergate!!
Corey James
This review of Mark Felt: The Man Who Brought Down The White House is spoiler free.*** (3/5)PROTESTERS ON STREETS. Feuds between national newspapers and the President. President Nixon's re-election. The death of FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. The subject of 1970's America isn't the type of thing that comes to mind in today's standards but modern directors have always found a way to make even the broadest, or the spikiest moments seem smoother through digestible dialogue, killer instinct directing and quick editing to make it action-packed. In January we had Steven Spielberg's The Post a film about the constant feuds between The New York Times and The Washington Post, though Spielberg spent most of the film's running time within the press offices it was still one of the more gripping political films in recent years, and like Spielberg it didn't come without flashy editing. And stellar performances. Joining Spielberg just two months later is writer-director Peter Landesman who previously centered on politics with his 2013 debut Parkland; about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. His latest Mark Felt: The Man Who Brought Down The White House centers around the secrets of the FBI, more specifically associate director Mark Felt. Set in 1972 after the death of J. Edgar Hoover, Mark (played by Liam Neeson) is at the hair's breadth of becoming the FBI's new director, his fierce loyalty was only matched by his brutal ambition to change America, after he is denied the job and only given a short time to solve the mystery of the Watergate Scandal that took place only a few days before, in the meantime armed (not with a gun) with information, evidence and confidential files he leaks information to The Washington Post.Story-wise this has been done before, the scandal of Watergate and it's sloppy cover-up, the dramatic perspectives of The Washington Post's journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein who were helped to uncover this mystery, the story was previously seen in 1976's All the President's Men and here there's at least as much dramatic intrigue tucked away into the 103 minute running time. Neeson owns the screen with his stunning performance but for a while it seems that this is all Mark Felt has going for it as unlike Spielberg, Oliver Stone's Nixon or indeed director Alan J. Pakula, here Landesman lacks the distinct killing blow for such a subject and as a writer he does a good job condensing a sprawling conspiracy into a digestible feature though he winds up overcooking the plot ultimately missing important points. Yet as a political drama it's solidly engrossing, leaving just enough dramatic intrigue to make a stand. VERDICT For all its flaws this is a solidly engrossing political drama that's at least good enough to make a powerful stand.
lavatch
In the bonus track of the DVD of "Mark Felt: The Man Who Brought Down the White House," the film's writer-director Peter Landesman, described enthusiastically how he attempted to depict in the story of lifelong FBI official Mark Felt as "the self-sacrifice of heroism in the face of massive corruption." But for many reasons, Landesman, a talented writer and director, failed to evoke a cinematic superhero in Mark Felt.First, the production values of the film were dark, gloomy, and depressing. Landesman used an antique anamorphic camera lens in the effort to evoke the early 1970s and an aura of suspense. But the results were downright depressing. It was odd that in the bonus track, one of the performers described the 1970s as an exciting time to be alive. But the look of the film resembled a morgue and an ashen-faced Liam Neeson taking on the aura of a galvanized corpse.Second, the overall treatment of the Watergate scandal was superficially treated. The film artists described the environment of the FBI as "black and white" when in fact there were many shades of grey. The men in suits in this film were uniformly depicted as thugs, as opposed to the clean-cut and impeccably dressed men of the Hoover era. The film actually took on the feel of "The Godfather." Third, the film suffered from the subplot of Mark Felt's family, including his marriage to a Lady Macbeth-type wife (Diane Lane) and a daughter who, understandably, had fled home to live in a California commune in Ben Lomand in the wilds of Northern California. Kudos to young Joan for figuring out her parents and making an early exit!Above all, the film failed to probe deeply into the Watergate scandal itself. It was not one man who brought down the president, as the film tried to project. It is likely that after Nixon's trip to China, the intelligence network had had enough of Nixon, and Watergate was the "silent coup" involving multiple participants in the intelligence community, who saw the removal of Nixon from office as being in the best interests of the nation.One of the most important lines in the film was the assertion that "the FBI is an independent body," as opposed to a branch of the federal government that is part of the Department of Justice. The filmmakers missed a golden opportunity to use the story of Mark Felt as an example of how in the years following World War II and continuing to the present, we really have four branches of our government: the executive, the legislative, the judicial, and, as is all too apparent today, the national security network.
