Noutions Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

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.

vincentlynch-moonoi I've never really been a fan of Oliver Stone, and wasn't when I first watched this in a theatre, and less so now that I watch it again on cable. I think that we all knew that Stone would do a hatchet job on Nixon, and that he did.During this viewing, in addition to my own remembering, I had the gift of YouTube. Take, for example, the 1962 concession speech when he lost the gubernatorial election in California. First watch it in the film. I didn't remember it quite so negatively as the film portrayed, though it was far from Nixon's finest hour. I immediately watched that concession speech on You Tube. Sure enough, while negative, Nixon was much more in control of his speech and mannerisms than the film implies, and it came across much more reasonably than in the film's depiction. And then there's the sweating and the 5 o'clock shadow. Certainly traits that Nixon did suffer from. But he didn't sweat as often or as profusely as Stone depicted. He often looked clean shaven (although I'm sure he had to work at it).And then there's Anthony Hopkins' characterization of Nixon. We should not expect the kind of mimicry that David Frye did in his impressions, but I found Anthony Hopkins' portrayal way off target. Nixon was not fat with ill-fitting suits, as is Hopkins. The speech was not even close. Similarly, over the closing credits, Nixon's farewell speech to staff is recreated. Watch it on the film. Then watch it on You Tube. What in the film appears terribly painful was, in my view, perhaps Nixon's finest hour...and by the way, he wasn't sweating half as much as Oliver Stone portrayed.The two castings that rang most true for me were Joan Allen as Pat Nixon...almost perfect (although that's not to say that she did what is portrayed in the film); and Paul Sorvino who had Henry Kissinger's speech patterns down perfectly. Edward Herrman was quite good in the small role of Nelson Rockefeller...not so much in looks, but in body language. David Hyde Pierce seemed quite suited to be John Dean. The rest of the main characters were, in my view botched...botched to the point where Haldeman and Erlichman almost come off looking good! In the last 15 or so minutes of a very long film, it seems as if Stone attempts to be a little more sympathetic to Nixon. He fails.Now I know what you're saying...that I'm an annoyed Republican. Nope. The first time I ever voted -- in 1968 -- I voted for Nixon, but the next time around I didn't vote for him because he lied about his secret plan to end the Vietnam War. In fact, I voted Democractic in virtually every election since 1968. But, fair is fair, and this film is simply not fair. As I said, most of us expected a hack job from Oliver Stone, and that's exactly what we got.

LeonLouisRicci The most alienating of Presidents Nixon did very little to be the Leader of America. He steadfastly and without hesitation, apology, or even a slight understanding of what was dividing the Country, was a classic egocentric. His way was the only way and the only way you were going to be a bona-fide Citizen of "His" Nation was to follow him or get out ("love it or leave it"...remember that?).That may be a tough and simplistic analysis of a complex Political Figure but it is in the opinion of many, True. The Film displays this as Fact and it is probably not too far off. Here we see a consistently troubled (even in pre-Watergate times and Childhood) Personality that was most likely doomed the minute he became dependent on the Public for success.This is a mesmerizing and dazzling Picture with all the Oliver Stone touches. The familiar Stylist flourishes with abandon and Pride as he presents a "Biography" ultra-dramatized for effect and intent. It sweeps like a vacuum and not a broom as it powerfully draws in and upon a large amount of unsettling History and Psychological diagnosis.Overall, it is compelling and interesting, riveting and revolting, as we watch a National Figure lose his soul, as quoted at the beginning of the Movie, and it is not a fun thing to observe. This is a forever dark and brooding affair much like the title "Character". For it seems, for the most part, Richard Nixon was more like a Characterization of a Person than a Person, both here on screen and in Real Life. The Human Nixon always seemed to be in noncompliance with the "Third-Person Nixon" that he liked to refer to. (the President states..."I would like to apologize for the murdered students at Kent State...but Nixon can't")