Nixon (1995)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Pierluigi P

  
  Hopkins is a monster. He does a truly larger than life performance, even if the megalomaniacal and mythomaniac Oliver Stone tries to pass his own paranoia to the Nixon character, Hopkins succeeds in retaining not only the madness but the candor and humanity only seen and heard from a… More
  Hopkins is a monster. He does a truly larger than life performance, even if the megalomaniacal and mythomaniac Oliver Stone tries to pass his own paranoia to the Nixon character, Hopkins succeeds in retaining not only the madness but the candor and humanity only seen and heard from a Shakespeare monarch. Overlong and hallucinatory but dense and ultimately compelling approach to one of the most controversial figures who swam and almost drown in that stormy and treacherous shithole called politics.

• Ken S

  
  Amazing direction & editing along with Hopkins central performance makes Nixon a great film to watch. At a touch over 3 1/4 hours it's a little daunting to undertake, but well worth it.

• familiar s

  
  Besides being unnecessarily long, this dramatic interpretation of Nixon's life, mainly including his political career, suffered from an overdose of emotions and relatively poor performance by Anthony Hopkins. I didn't expect this (proportion of boredom) from an Oliver Stone… More
  Besides being unnecessarily long, this dramatic interpretation of Nixon's life, mainly including his political career, suffered from an overdose of emotions and relatively poor performance by Anthony Hopkins. I didn't expect this (proportion of boredom) from an Oliver Stone film; I am obviously very much disappointed and hence don't find it recommendable.

• Anthony L

  
  An awesome and surprisingly sympathetic biopic of Richard Nixon, brilliantly portrayed by Hopkins and excellently directed by Stone. The supporting cast is an array of stars and everyone is on fine form, for me though it's Paul Sorvino's Henry Kissinger that steals the show… More
  An awesome and surprisingly sympathetic biopic of Richard Nixon, brilliantly portrayed by Hopkins and excellently directed by Stone. The supporting cast is an array of stars and everyone is on fine form, for me though it's Paul Sorvino's Henry Kissinger that steals the show and I'm not sure why he wasn't swamped with awards but Hopkins was deservedly nominated. It may have been a bit fantastical but I thought it was brilliantly structured, well written and above all very entertaining.

• Luke B

  
  Surprisingly, Stone shows Nixon in a rather positive light. Nixon is a very emotional film, which certainly helps in relating to such a powerful and demonised figure. Hopkins gives a staggering performance. True, he hasn't got the voice down perfectly or, at some points, even… More
  Surprisingly, Stone shows Nixon in a rather positive light. Nixon is a very emotional film, which certainly helps in relating to such a powerful and demonised figure. Hopkins gives a staggering performance. True, he hasn't got the voice down perfectly or, at some points, even close. What he does capture is the essence, the more subtle mannerisms. 20 minutes in and all I saw was Nixon. The rest of the cast also give excellent turns, I can't pass judgment on how accurate they are, but they all serve their purpose and make an investment in their roles. The only minor fault of the movie is the uneven pace. It starts like JFK. Fast cuts, memorable dialogue and hints at conspiracy theories. As it progresses the film settles down into a much slower, character study of the man himself. It's a great summary of a complex man and how he was viewed by the world.

• Tim S

  
  I saw the director's cut of 3 hours and 32 minutes, so this is what my review is based on. I don't know how much different the theatrical version is, but I'm sure I would love that one, too. Anthony Hopkins is insanely good as Nixon. One of the best all around… More
  I saw the director's cut of 3 hours and 32 minutes, so this is what my review is based on. I don't know how much different the theatrical version is, but I'm sure I would love that one, too. Anthony Hopkins is insanely good as Nixon. One of the best all around performances. The scenes with him and Joan Allen are heartbreaking. I am a big fan of JFK, but I think this is Oliver Stone's best. I know I have been going on and on about flashbacks, but this is one film that does it right. It jumps around a lot, but I never got confused or felt it was convoluted. I think all of the supporting cast are perfectly cast. There is the always reliable James Woods and Paul Sorvino is incredible. After watching this, I understand what Stone was trying to do with W. Maybe if he would have given it more time and focused on the mental and emotional aspects of the man as he did here, I think he would have had a better film. Robert Richardson does an amazing job (it's like Casino, but in Washington, DC) and the script is well written. Great, great movie.

• Cassandra M

  
  #13Nixon Anthony Hopkins gives a riveting and at times disturbing performance of an, at one time all powerful man. The film is more of a character study rather than about any of the scandals like Watergate and the cover up and things like that, although those events are a big part of… More
  #13Nixon Anthony Hopkins gives a riveting and at times disturbing performance of an, at one time all powerful man. The film is more of a character study rather than about any of the scandals like Watergate and the cover up and things like that, although those events are a big part of the story, they are only liabilities to the film. And thats exactly what they become because you as a viewer of the film are mesmerized and stunned by the incomparable performance from Anthony Hopkins. Stone portrays Nixon as pitiful person, and Hopkins hits the nail on the head. I'll be honest towards the end of the film i teared up, but thats just me. The great thing about this film just like Stone's other masterpiece, JFK, you can make up your own mind. President speack:? ... because people have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I am not a crook.?

• Al S

  
  Anthony Hopkins is unforgettable in the lead role of Richard Nixon. Another intriuging political thriller by Director, Oliver Stone.

• Cameron J

  
  He's a perfectly competent actor, he's buddies with Oliver Stone and he looks so much like Nixon that it's completely unfathomable that no has ever gotten him to play the dude, so how in good Grace Kelly's name did they not get Tommy Lee Jones to play Nixon? Eh,… More
  He's a perfectly competent actor, he's buddies with Oliver Stone and he looks so much like Nixon that it's completely unfathomable that no has ever gotten him to play the dude, so how in good Grace Kelly's name did they not get Tommy Lee Jones to play Nixon? Eh, well, even though he doesn't have his natural voice or face... or eyes... or hair (I think that widow's peak is running a little too long), Hopkins is perfect to play Nixon, because he's alway been known as that kind of sly, clever dog, and now he's finally playing good ol' Tricky Dick. I'm sure some people would say that he's also great casting, because Nixon's about as evil as a serial killer, and to those people, I say shut up, you liberals, you probably don't even know a whole lot about his presidency... like me, but luckily, this film really clued me in, especially since I saw the extended version. Three-and-a-half hours, it better teach me some stuff, which is why it's releaving to see Stone attached to this project, because he managed to make a three hour to three-and-a-half hour - in the case of the director's cut - long, repetitive dialogue piece like "JFK" really work, because he packed it with so much info... plenty of which was inaccurate. Okay, maybe I should double-check my sources if I'm going to be praising this film for accuracy, because Stone already slipped up when he thought Hopkins could pass for Nixon. Well, I will give him this: He was right, because although Hopkins doesn't at all look the part, the guy knows how to transform into any role. Still, while that makes this film all the better, that doesn't completely drown out the misstep in the casting, let alone the missteps in the actual film. The film features a scene in which Nixon listens to the recordings of his famous slip-up, and then flashes back to the lengthy, career-destroying conversation in question, and that whole scene is absolutely brilliant and effective, or at least it would be, if the film didn't open with that. The story is rarely told in a non-linear fashion, but when it is, it really doesn't feel like it fits, as Nixon's story is one of building to major highs, only to descend into major lows, and I know that it sounds like a nitpick, especially when you consider that the non-linear storytelling is only occasional, but when you see the film, the non-linear storytelling lands a hard blow to the resonance of the hook and leaves the film to, for quite some time, retain that feel of a history lesson that's just covering facts, whether than flowing like the story that it is. To add insult to injury, this out-of-order storytelling is sloppy to begin with, transitioning back and forth through time with a major flashback feel, whether than story shift feel, which leaves you really thrown off when these shifts in story begin to well outstay their welcome as flashbacks. Now, if that's not enough inconsistency in storytelling for you, switch to linear storytelling is jarring; but don't get me wrong, that's the way this story should be told, so I should be glad that it's mostly told in that fashion, but even Oliver Stone's linear storytelling is a mess, changing focus too drastically at points while feeling somewhat thrown-together and repetitive to continue, if not intensify the history lesson feel of the film, for although there is meditation, there's too much substance and too many facts - some of which are superfluous - packed into one scene, alone, that meditation finds itself diluted, and the dramatic effectiveness of the substance with it. Richard Nixon's is a story well worth telling, but this film is as much a history lesson that we can hear anywhere as it is the dramatisation that Nixon deserves, and the final product comes out both too long and not long enough, falling just a little bit short on the meditation, resonance and consistency that, if orchestrated carefully enough, could have given us a powerful film. As it stands, well, it's still really good, through all of its missteps. Stone is not at all the greatest filmmaker, yet he's perfectly competent enough to keep a film this mammoth and messy going and largely through style. Now, Stone's random occasional cuts to black-and-white didn't work in "JFK" and don't work here almost as certainly as all of the transparent images, newsreel footage and flashback montages that were in a flashback-driven, investigative mystery-thriller like "JFK" don't work in this film, yet those moments of overstylizing come and go while the brilliantly effective style remains constant. Robert Richardson does it again, shooting the film a kind of subtle grit and grain in the color to lay down a broad tone that can still be isolated very quickly and very effectively to add a dash of tension to any subtley heavy situation, and where Richardson's cinematography supplements the resonance of the film visually, John Williams' score supplements it audibly. With all of the George Lucas', Richard Donners' and - woah boy - Steven Spielberg's, it's pretty overlooked that Oliver Stone is another director that knows how to get John Williams to put together some of his best work - which is saying a lot -, yet lo and behold the men have quite the taste in music between them, and sure enough, the score in this film is boastful and blasting with, at times, a powerful epic sweep to help greatly in pumping this film with the theatrics needed to both engage the audience and make up for whatever pieces of resonance collapse under the weight of messy storytelling. However, as spotty as Stone's storytelling gets, he carries this film and makes it as good as it is more than he squanders the potential behind this ambitious project. True, very often, he's overemphatic about the facts to the point of diluting dramatic aspects, but when he does give the film that human touch, he cuts deep, whether when he's meditating on the grit of rocky politics or simply telling the story of Richard Nixon, a human of great ambition, brilliance and struggles, yet a human nevertheless, being flawed and often overwhelmed by circumstance, both as a politician and a moral man. Stone paints an honest portrait of Nixon that we've rarely, if ever seen before, and while this massive defining of the legend stands to cut deeper, Stone still strikes a chord that gives us much insight into one of our most notorious leaders, yet Stone doesn't paint that portrait alone. Again, Anthony Hopkins, as far as appearances go, is so amazingly miscast, it's awe-inspiring and painfully glaring... for less than five minutes out of this well over 3 long hour study on this one person, and that's no exaggeration, because although he doesn't look the part, Hopkins becomes Nixon immediately, not only adopting all of his traits and mannerisms, but that kind of humanity and atmosphere that defined Nixon, and he does it all with an intense and layered lead presence comprised of charisma, emotion, anguish and authority that leaves any piece of pretending in his portrayal of someone he is most certainly not to just wash away as you find yourself hypnotised by Hopkins' haunting, effortless bypassing of not only the glare of the miscast, but of his own stardom that he very much deserves, an opinion supported greatly by this testament to his awesome acting abilities. Overall, the film's storytelling is inconsistent in focus, yet consistent in messiness, being overly matter-of-fact to the point of damaging the film's resonance and leaving it to get very repetitive very often, yet you're gripped through and through by, if nothing else, the dazzling cinematography by Robert Richardson and sweeping score by John Williams, as well as by many fine and sometimes glowing moments where Oliver Stone really delivers on the resonance and effectiveness this insightful and provocative dramatisation, though not quite as much as leading man Anthony Hopkins, who transcends the glaring miscast by effortlessly transforming into both the layered former leader of America and the compelling leader of this film, thus leaving "Nixon" to stand as a very entertaining and fascinating study on the highs and lows of President Richard Nixon. 3/5 - Good

• Alec B

  
  Its essentially a fictional account of Nixon's presidency while examining Nixon the man. Like Stone's 'JFK' the plot lies in a sea of wild conspiracy theories that stretch from probable to outrageous but I think that's what makes it effective. Stone uses the… More
  Its essentially a fictional account of Nixon's presidency while examining Nixon the man. Like Stone's 'JFK' the plot lies in a sea of wild conspiracy theories that stretch from probable to outrageous but I think that's what makes it effective. Stone uses the burden of such terrible secrets to slowly strip away Nixon's defenses and leave him a broken and surprisingly sympathetic character at the end. Oh and Anthony Hopkins is goddamn fantastic in this.

• Ivan D

  
  From "All the President's Men" to the most recent "Frost/Nixon", many films have been created regarding Nixon's shameful stint as U.S. president, yet not a single brave soul dared to chronicle the entirety of his life. Enter Oliver Stone, a man that… More
  From "All the President's Men" to the most recent "Frost/Nixon", many films have been created regarding Nixon's shameful stint as U.S. president, yet not a single brave soul dared to chronicle the entirety of his life. Enter Oliver Stone, a man that almost borders political obsession regarding the topical figures he tries to render on-screen that his film "JFK" looked like a subjectively self-indulged investigation transformed into a lengthy docudrama. But unlike that previous film, "Nixon" is really far more interested with the man himself than the entirety of his intrigues. The whole film may have deeply focused on highly political places such as the oval office or Mao's communist territory in China, but the editing, along with Oliver Stone's use of highly unsettling cinematic style(playing around with color and black and white), is an expressionistic translation of Nixon's inner disturbances, masterfully played by the great Anthony Hopkins. It was said that Mr. Hopkins' portrayal of the mysterious American President was ''miraculous'; that, I think, is still an understatement. Hell, I even consider 'divine transformation' a slight complement. Though carrying the burden of being 'too British' in playing one of the representative American figures of the 70's, Mr. Hopkins played the part very convincingly, commanding the screen with his subtle smiles and desperate tantrums that even though his voice and features were nothing compared to that of the real Richard Nixon, he has able to embrace and embody his fragmented persona successfully. The 1970's is the defining era of America, giving way for the birth of subversiveness and counterculture, hippies and pseudo-communists, paranoia and conspiracy, the Vietnam War and Fidel Castro. It also revealed the side of America few had ever anticipated: rebellious, restless, radical, but quietly revolutionary. It may look far-fetched but I can't help but see "Easy Rider" as a great companion piece. Nixon may have left a trail of scandals and intrigues, but seeing the era's descriptions and seeing his, it's a perfect duo of revelation; yes, it has paved way for the wild side of American culture, but it has also undoubtedly molded it. The United States of America. 'The Land of Promises'. Oh, how it continuously preached about the Great 'American' Dream, yet the Great 'American' Tragedy merely resides in its highest office playing on and on. We'll never know if Nixon really resigned in pride or in guilt. The Watergate. The Bay of Pigs. The ill-advised bombing of Cambodia. All incriminating devices for 'Nixon the politician'. but Stone, looking more humanistic and less political than ever, used them as mediums to expose the heart and soul of 'Nixon the man'. In the film, I distinctly remember what Nixon said about the Kent State massacre: "I'd like to offer my condolences to those families. But Nixon can't." The grocer's son is indeed not as heartless as everyone thinks.

• Sarah P

  
  Very long, but interesting to watch. I liked the way the story unfolded (and refolded in some cases).

• Brian R

  
  Oliver Stone's Nixon is one of my fav pictures. Nixon has become the 37th president of the U.S. who has risen to the top of his game, yet he is holding personal secrets, mainly because of his two brothers who passed away and the recent deaths of JFK, RFK, and Martin Luther King… More
  Oliver Stone's Nixon is one of my fav pictures. Nixon has become the 37th president of the U.S. who has risen to the top of his game, yet he is holding personal secrets, mainly because of his two brothers who passed away and the recent deaths of JFK, RFK, and Martin Luther King Jr. Stone's style is real Shakesparian about the rise and fall of a man who could have been remembered as a great president but decided to drop the dominoes on his men. Stone and his writers tell a non-linear story shifting from recent events yet making sure everything makes sense. The film is a campanion piece to Orson Welles "Citizen Kane" with the March of Time newsreel, documentary archive, different camera stocks, VHS, 1970's color, B&W, fps speeds, Nixon suffering the lack of being with his wife, alienated childhood, and the private tapes he recorded at The White House. Nixon may have been a flawed man but he sure did achieve many great things. A great movie.

• MJS M

  
  Many call Stone?s 1995 film a companion piece to JFK, but I?m not sure I like the analogy. JFK didn?t really have much of anything to do with Kennedy?s life or politics, while Nixon has everything to do with both. To me, this is a perfect example of how biopics can be made for… More
  Many call Stone?s 1995 film a companion piece to JFK, but I?m not sure I like the analogy. JFK didn?t really have much of anything to do with Kennedy?s life or politics, while Nixon has everything to do with both. To me, this is a perfect example of how biopics can be made for reason?s other than to show off an actor?s mimicry ability. Anthony Hopkins doesn?t much look like Nixon, but he sure does act like him. Paul Sorvino steals the show as Kissenger and David Hyde Pierce is really good as John Dean. But Oliver Stone is the real star here, I?ve always been a fan of his speculative view of history. I would never show this to a classroom or something, but it?s good to have someone willing to read between the lines of history. At three and a half hours you sort of need to reserve an afternoon in order to see this, but it moves faster then you?d think. It?s worth seeing the director?s cut if only for a scene between Hopkins and Sam Waterson playing the CIA director. Scenes like this are like the great tracks you discover in odds and ends CDs that musicians put out. I?ve never been a huge fan the DVD of the movie, it?s long length leads to non-anamorphic picture that kind of looks like VHS, especially during the deleated scenes. I might pick up the Blu-Ray some day.

• Sean L

  
  This movie is to JFK what Casino was to Goodfellas. I liked Casino, and I liked Nixon as well. Hopkins doesn't really look the part, but he was so good that I just got wrapped up in the story, and it was jarring to then see the real Nixon. Stone's style is strong, and he… More
  This movie is to JFK what Casino was to Goodfellas. I liked Casino, and I liked Nixon as well. Hopkins doesn't really look the part, but he was so good that I just got wrapped up in the story, and it was jarring to then see the real Nixon. Stone's style is strong, and he keeps the movie interesting throughout. It's definitely long, but I don't know what could be cut. One of the better biopics I've seen.

• cody f

  
  My Favorite Oliver Stone film!

• Ina S

  
  Hopkin's performance is the only possible reason to sit through this very dull, pseudo-controversial, much too lengthy film. It's also the only reason to give this 2 stars instead of 1.

• Kit X

  
  Makes you realise how great Oliver Stone thinks he [Oliver Stone] is. Quite interesting

Read all 18 featured audience ratings