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

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.

I still am perplexed by this roller-coaster of a movie - three hours of very weird montage, sudden jumps, crazy color schemes, abrupt flashbacks and very heavy moments made me quite amazed. I am not an Olver Stone fan and I am more on Steven Spielberg's side, but then, I really wanted to see a Nixon movie. Richard M. Nixon was and still sadly is a traduced, maligned and ill-depicted man but he was a real man, driven and deep, full of demons (who isn't?) and really decent in many (but not all) ways. Anthony Hopkins did a great job here, maybe, too far sometimes. I saw many footages with real Nixon and he was not that caricature as Hopkins depicted him. And come on, was he really that much into drinking? The sources are highly controversial in there. Anyway, that was very compelling and mind-provoking to see that monster of a film and realize how multi-faceted and difficult Nixon was, and all who were near him. The brilliant cast of drama heavies (Woods, Sorvino, Allen, Hoskins, Harris) did a decent job, true. But one serious claim remains - the life of this great man was so large and busy that even 3 hours were not enough. Must have been a serial or several films. There are some more complaints about the movie - no Chuck Colson, no deeper plot with Ed Harris, not enough on McCarthy - but still, the film is not bad. Albeit, too harsh on a real great man

Maybe overall the film wasn't that bad but many times the 'plot' descended into the pits/depths of poor cinema. Oliver Stone, if his intent was to portray former President Nixon in a sensitive even sympathetic light, the final cut didn't attest to that fine sentiment.Yeah, there were some poignant scenes that sort of cast the brooding politician often photographed with a permanent five-o'clock shadow in a cleaner, shinier light. For example... President Nixon's encounter with some student protesters at the Linclon Memorial comes to mind: especially the exchange with the 19 year old female. Her assertion pierced Nixon deep. I paraphrase:"So, you're powerless."Nixon's response though was mere fodder for the next volley."No... Change takes time. I am able to control the 'system' some of the time."The girl pounced on that one."Sounds like a wild animal."Really, that's about the only scene where Stone cut President Nixon some 'slack.Then there's the drinking bouts. In this film, everyone drank and drank like there was no tomorrow, no presidency. Only occasionally and for mere seconds did any of the cast stop to eat/breathe/despair. By my count, Mr. President had 60 double whiskeys in a little over two hours. Now if you mix in the champagne cocktails and Texas chili dogs, Dick, was well over the legal limit for breathalizing with civility.The good...Anthony Hopkins, in his portrayal of 'Treeky Dick' gave a good account of himself but maybe not that of the real man. The supporting cast were just that. No one member stood out or forward as outstanding. And there were plenty of moments where some subordinate should have grabbed the baton and done something, anything useful. For sure, Stone didn't coach them in any strong direction. Too much ad-liberalism...The bad...Why mention Howard Hunt and then not follow up on the foreshadowing? Better yet, why cast Ed Harris as the mystery man if in the film he was relegated to holding the bag-man? Makes no sense but helps the plot meander...The ugly...If you're going to be kind, Oliver, please cut the cursing. Even Bob, scuza me, J. Edgar Hoover said as much. Yes, presidents who occasionally curse are no less presidential. Seems to me though that Stone wanted to cast a crooked, accusatory finger at Nixon even while the latter gazed affectionately at the larger than life portrait of the famous and much beloved Civil War president, Lincoln.That's a bit unkind.OK, Nixon paid his vows (when the camera was on him) to IKe's portrait as well but no homage what-so-ever to John's. And whenever the besieged President Nixon encountered the real white house ghost, Dick followed the script but not before he poured a drink. Then he punted.Summation...Oliver's film shed little if any new light on who Mr. Richard Milhouse Nixon really was. To wit, Stone's rendition is a mere whitewash of what he could/should have done for the disgraced former President: tell the truth. In that regard, this film didn't even probe the surfaces.I'm more befuddled than ever. My guess: so is the surviving Nixon family. They and Richard Nixon deserved better. Hope history is as kind to the man as Henry Kissinger portended.