Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

OllieSuave-007 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

Dan1863Sickles I loved this movie when I saw it in theaters in 1995, and I was thrilled to order the Blu-Ray "Election Year" version (with tons of commentaries and documentaries) for just ten dollars from Amazon. Having re-watched the three hour director's cut over three nights, I was more impressed than ever. Yes, NIXON takes the man many hated as a one dimensional villain and turns him into a poignant, tragic hero. But the greatness of the film goes beyond Anthony Hopkins' performance. What I loved best about NIXON was the supporting cast, many of whom seemed much more comfortable in their historical roles than Welsh Hopkins as the All-American Nixon. I loved Joan Allen's fragile sexuality, her poignant loneliness, the subtle class and sophistication she brought to First Lady Pat Nixon. James Woods was born to play H.R. Haldeman. A superb character actor, Woods exudes not only sleazy corruption but brutal menace and a genuinely shrewd understanding of politics as jungle combat. Ed Harris as E. Howard Hunt portrays a very different sort of lowlife -- a Joseph Conrad style mercenary and man of action who has broken the rules for Nixon time and again and feels a genuine rage at being betrayed by his boss. Even Paul Sorvino, best known for playing Italian mob types in Mafia classics like GOODFELLAS, is surprisingly effective as the cultured, genial, yet unmistakably brutal and unscrupulous Henry Kissinger. The thing that makes this movie such a fascinating failure is the immense scope of what Oliver Stone wants to accomplish. It's not just a story of the Watergate break-in and the infamous cover-up. It's not just a study of American power during the Cold War. And it's not just a character study about a ruthless, powerful, but deeply insecure man who rose to power and was destroyed by his own character flaws. NIXON tries to be all those stories, all at the same time. Some elements work better than others. Brutally effective political drama, and spine-tingling suspense and intrigue, are frequently interrupted by unintentionally funny "character" moments. Oliver Stone never did have much of a sense of humor, and while that doesn't hurt the political scenes it's deadly in the personal moments. The horrible dying brother scenes go on too long, (the boy Nixon watches his big brother spit up blood with a Darth Vader like lack of compassion) and college boy Nixon remembers being knocked on his ass on the football field a few times too many. There are also some disastrous casting choices, i.e. sweet Mary Steenburgen as Nixon's ice-cold witch of a mother, Hannah Nixon. The movie never seems to decide whether Nixon's mother was every bit the saint he pretends, or whether she was just one more person who let him down. Oliver Stone seems to think that the mere presence of the mother is some sort of startling insight. Like watching the young Nixon getting knocked down on the football field. The flashback scenes are by far the weakest thing about Nixon. NIXON is not a perfect masterpiece like THE MALTESE FALCON or even JFK. Whole scenes are disastrous, and whole performances fall flat. You never will figure out just what happened during the Bay of Pigs, what Nixon really knew about that day in Dallas, or even what was on those tapes! But if you have the patience to sit through it you will be richly rewarded by an amazing panorama of talent.

inioi I saw this movie many times and the first thing i can say is: a Remarkable Achievement.Unlike others, i have no problem with 3 hours movies. The movie is not long: what is told in the film needs 192 minutes. That's all.The plot is complex, with a lot of information: names, dates, events, Watergate Scandal, Chappaquiddick Incident, Bahia Pigs, Vietnam War, Missile Cuban Crisis...all was connected.So would be better having some knowledge of this turbulent era in order to comprehend how and why things happened.The film also portrays the interesting fact of how politics works from within: the control of big companies, big money, power, betrayal, blackmail. The supporting cast is excellent, the same as and Anthony Hopkins performance. John Williams soundtrack and Robert Richardson's photography are also outstanding.9/10

kernwilson 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.