Review of Nixon (1995) by Ian H — 11 Jan 2011

This is a review of the Director's Cut of the film. This review specifically references scenes found only in said cut of the film.

Oliver Stone's 'Nixon' is much like the US President of which it is about. It's so close to achieving greatness but is brought down by just a few fatal flaws. If not for these issues, it could be on par with Stone's best, if not better than them. The film is a dramatic biography of President Richard Nixon, the film taking a non-chronological look at his difficult, yet success filled, life.

It opens with a brief on-screen message that, due to missing pieces of information (like the tapes that Nixon held on to until his death), some aspects of the history of the film have been dramatized, or "made up". In what surprised me, this actually turned out to be one of the better parts of the movie, as it gave Stone (who also co-wrote) a chance to really shine. He tries to show us that he is the controversial director that he likes to think he is, and succeeds. It turns out that the most controversial president is a good fit for Mr. Stone. His direction is impeccable, better I'd say than it was in Wall Street or Platoon. It has this quality to it of some artistic beauty. He changes between film types, makes cuts to black and white, and uses historical footage (both as part of the movie and as a reference) to showcase Richard's life, and the movie is better for it.

The casting is largely fantastic, but is also a source of one of those fatal flaws. The supporting cast is top-notch, including the likes of Ed Harris and Paul Sorvino. The entire supporting cast is great, not only are they generally big names, but they also look the part enough to allow me to easily follow along with who everyone was. This is, however, where that fatal flaw comes in. Anthony Hopkins plays Nixon himself, and although it's well-acted, he doesn't look the part at all. Every scene I had to tell myself that it was Nixon rather than just seeing Hopkins. When a curly-haired and thick glasses-wearing Paul Sorvino took the stage, I saw Henry Kissinger. I just never saw Nixon. Don't get me wrong, Hopkins plays the part beyond admirably; he even has the voice down. He plays the president has man who has struggled with success all his life, and he plays it quite well. I just shouldn't have to keep telling myself that I'm watching 'Nixon' and not 'Hopkins'. In Ron Howard's 'Frost/Nixon', casting Frank Langella as Nixon was a fantastic move. Langella seemed almost born for the part. Hopkins, however, was not.

On to one final issue: at three and a half hours, 'Nixon' is long. So long as a matter of fact, that I couldn't watch it in a single sitting. I am not, though, saying that 'Nixon' is too long. Although it is epic in length, it is also an epic of a man who did quite a lot. I feel as though if much (or if anything) was cut, vital parts of the story would have been missing, it's just a tad too much scandal for a single sitting. The pacing for such a long movie is also surprising. The movie was almost gripping at times, much due to the story at hand as well as the editing. One scene had Nixon talking to the CIA Director (played by Law and Order's Sam Waterson), with many rapid camera cuts to flowers (explained in the movie) and such. It seems like the scene might be tedious, but my eyes were practically glued to the screen; I was startled when the scene ended. Whoever edited this deserves a secure career.

Going into watching 'Nixon', I was apprehensive. Stone is often a hit-and-miss director, and I was definitely reluctant about Hopkins in the lead. Stone pulled through, however, and Hopkins, though miscast, still showed that he is a great actor. It's gripping; I only wish that it didn't take two nights to get through it.