Truly Dreadful Film

Masterful Movie

It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Alan J. Pakula made a very smart decision by not making this movie longer. Because I think Oliver Stone made a mistake by making the runtime of JFK three hours and nine minutes, and the director's cut even longer by 17 minutes! The result, in the case of JFK, was that the movie focused more than it should do on some subplots that really didn't add too much to the story. All the President's Men, instead, made a good use of every minute in it with its reasonable runtime. All the President's Men can be described as a "Hitchcockian" political thriller. Its tension and suspense are unprecedented in this sub-genre. The Oscar-winner script, with all its cleverness, isn't the only powerful aspect about the movie. Alan J. Pakula directing is very entertaining. Besides building the tension, he shot many long scenes that really deserve to be of the most iconic scenes in film. The performances are all great; Redford has the most of the screen time, and I wouldn't have been surprised if he had an Oscar nod. He has a particular scene in which he changed his face expressions so gracefully. Hoffman is one of my favorite actors and he gave one of his best performances in this movie; his character is so energetic and impulsive and he just got it right. But the performance that really standout is Jason Robards' performance as Ben Bradlee, the executive editor of The Washington Post. Robards, without a doubt, deserved his Oscar for best supporting actor.At the middle of its third act, I think the movie suffered a little bit moving between two sub-plots; it moved very fast between them and I think it should have made a small breather to keep me gripped, and to make me invested in the new sub-plot from its beginning.There were many secondary characters in this movie and they were all great, except one character that I felt it should have given some more depth because it has an important role near the end, and a background could have filled some logical gaps. With that being said, this character is very interesting and you may be interested to search about it after watching the movie.(8.5/10)

Let me tell you readers something about newspaper movies. They are generally about the excitement of the events that is occurring, but seldom do these kind of movies allow the audience to know that the majority of retrieving information is dull and tedious. In 1976's All the President's Men, that is exactly what it's all about. This is a newspaper movie that takes you through the finer points of the newspaper business accurately as possible with very little action and mostly dialogue. I see that as a good thing……and a bad thing. See, there are some movies that should be accurate as possible and this is one of them. This movie is about how the Washington Post uncovered the Watergate Scandal and accuracy is about the best you'll see in any film. But does that sacrifice the entertainment value of the movie? It depends on the moviegoer you are. If you like movie with lots of exposition, then you'll have no problem. I think it also depends on your historical knowledge of the film and the more you know, the more interesting it can be. That being said, the movie has a reputation of being one of 1976's finest films. I may not think so, although I thoroughly enjoyed the film. The story lends some historical value and it can grow tense at times. This film needs strong acting and it received excellent performances from everyone down to the last man. We can also credit the director for the relative success of the movie. William Goldman's screenplay is all dialogue, and director Alan J. Pakula was able to take those words and bring them on screen while keeping the movie's tempo at a fast pace and getting performances out of all his actors.So to understand this movie means you need to understand what led up to the infamous Watergate Scandal. That is essentially the plot of the movie. Heading up to the 1972 presidential elections, Bob Woodward (Robert Redford)-a reporter for the Washington Post, uncovers what seems to be a minor break-in at the Democratic Party National Headquarters. He grows suspicious when he sees that top defense lawyers are on the case already. The editor of the Post, Ben Bradlee (Jason Robards) wants to run the story and he assigns Woodward and Carl Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman) to do so. As they uncover more information, they see how high up the Republican Party is involved in this cover up.Another reason why this movie worked is because of the charm and pedigree of the cast. The movie is given an unusually stacked cast given the time period of the film. What I really liked about this cast is how they become so immersed in their roles. I wasn't watching Robert Redford or Dustin Hoffman, but instead I was watching Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. They truly became reporters on screen, and that is the mark of a good actor. To become the person the actors are playing. Redford and Hoffman were outstanding and they show great chemistry with each other. Let's not forget about the smaller characters though. Jason Robards did an excellent job as the executive editor Ben Bradlee who always shown support in his reporters even if things went south. Martin Balsam does a solid job as the managing editor, Howard Simons. Then we have Jane Alexander as the woman who provided the men with their best leads. Last but not least, we have the great Hal Holbrook as Deep Throat, the mysterious source of the men. Everyone was able to take the words from William Goldman's screenplay and make it their own words, which it's very hard to do in the movies.On the whole, All The President's Men is a fine movie. Although I feel this could have been an instant classic that could have been destined for greatness. In some eyes, it is. Given its long length, this film could have been overly dull and tedious, but the cast, Pakula's incredible direction, and a really interesting story were able to make this a taut, entertaining thriller. We get to learn about the journalistic process given that its repeated in several cycles, which can grow tiresome at some point. I liked this movie enough to give this movie a recommend, especially if you're interested in seeing how the Watergate Scandal came to be with the utmost historical accuracy. Also this movie is just a good vehicle for the starpower of Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman.My Grade: B

The work of Redford and Hoffmann is impeccable here as are the supporting players. This, of course, is the story of the Washington Post investigation of the Watergate conspirators under the Nixon administration, specifically that of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein . It shows what happens when tips come in and the close scrutiny and support for sources that skilled journalists must adhere to. Because it was recent history, the players needed to be presented in a truly realistic way. We are introduced to Ben Bradlee, played by the wonderful Jason Robards, and all the principles involved. Hal Holbrook is the notorious "Deepthroat." There is a frantic pace to this as deadlines need to be met and the realities of the risks taken by the Post. Read a couple books on Watergate and then watch this. It is a gem.

This movie retells the role of two young reporters in the downfall of president Richard Milhous Nixon. It is now 40 years since this movie first appeared and it still strongly resonates with me. The reporters, played by Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman as Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, show the tenacity and courage it took to expose the crimes and misdemeanours of Nixon and the people in his administration that resulted in the ruin of lives and careers. The movie couldn't cover the range of misdeeds that marked this administration in its use of power, unprecedented in the history of the United States. However, once they smelled a rat, the government bloodhounds couldn't stop them in their mission. I was riveted by how they sought out the people they needed to question to get at the truth. The information they received was often volunteered unaware by those who revealed names and other information. At one point after interviewing a book-keeper, played superbly by Jane Alexander, Bernstein came back to the newsroom with notes scribbled on bits of paper, napkins etc. One lead followed another with personal contacts, phone calls, door knocking and combing through lists. Trying to be coy, they used the technique of raising "just one more thing" to elicit key bits of evidence without appearing too inquisitive. The two young men were supported, questioned relentlessly, and watched closely by older newsman and boss, played by Jack Warden. Jason Robards shined in the role as the iconic Ben Bradlee, the managing editor. This movie gives a real taste of the legwork, digging and intuitive journalism that led to one of the most dramatic stories in US. political history.