Nixon (1995) (1 Viewer)

[SamT]

I just re-watched this after a long time. I watched the longer cut 212 minutes for the first time. I remember buying the DVD version years ago but never watched it because the added scenes were not of great quality. This was bluray and they have restored all those added scenes to the original movie quality.

I enjoyed it a lot and it has aged well. For example I initially liked JFK (1991) but when I got older, now I can't even watch it. I'm not a conspiracy theory guy and the movie is a total fiction gone wrong.

Nixon on the other hand is a perfect blend of real, fiction and dramatization. By chance or by design everything works here and as I said it has aged well. Make sure you re-watch this. You might think it is a relevant movie today, it is but not just in the obvious way. You can see it on a new level even devoid of politics.

One thing, I hope they have not touched the music in the longer cut because I remember I was more impressed with the music in the original version. The music is still great and I own it but in my memory I remember hearing it more in the theatrical release. It had a greater presence.

 

[TravisR]

One thing that's amazing about Nixon is that it manages to generate sympathy for someone that history and the public largely views as a 'crook'.

 

[Angelo Colombus]

Saw the movie when it came out and it's good entertainment but to see the real Nixon see the PBS American Experience broadcast. Also see Robert Altman's Secret Honor too.

 

[Ruz-El]

I'm a big fan of both Nixon and JFK. The important thing to remember about JFK is it's a biography of Garrison, and as such the messy conspiracy stuff is actually very accurate in that his investigation was a mess as well. I have no idea if he got anything right. It shows how dangerous lost one can become with obsession. Another one with this theme I think is Zodiac by David Fincher, another film that's as much about obsession as it is about solving a crime.

JFK holds up as epic, everything and the kitchen sink film making that paved the way for the peak of the style with Natural Born Killers.

Back to Nixon, the memory of it that stands out most with it is Anthony Hopkins doesn't really look or sound like Nixon, but by the end you feel like you know Richard Nixon. Usually these films feel more like caricature's of the subjects, like Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles. It's a good, even great impression, but doesn't feel as "real" to me as Hopkins does as Nixon.

 

[Sam Favate]

Since we're on the subject of JFK (the film), let me just say that I always found that movie to be saying that the explanation the country was given to the assassination couldn't possibly have happened. I don't think it was really attempting to explain the particulars.

Nixon was a good movie, and Hopkins did a terrific job with the character. However, by the time the movie came out, I felt Oliver Stone had lost his mind. I don't think I have seen anything by him since that I liked.

 

[SamT]

W. I have seen only once. Don't know how it stands. Probably the example of too soon.

 

[Ruz-El]

Last one of his I've seen was WALLSTREET: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS. A good idea with terrible casting. His last "great" film was ANY GIVEN SUNDAY.

Actually I'm wrong, last of his I have seen was SAVAGES. it was dreadful if I remember it right.

W. was simply okay.

 

[TravisR]

I'm the one person who liked Savages and Snowden was pretty good. As far as I'm concerned, most directors run out of gas towards the end of their careers but Oliver Stone has made enough great movies in his time that his work will be highly regarded by movie fans of the future.

 

[Ruz-El]

I completely forgot about SNOWDEN. I'll have to check that one out.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

However, by the time the movie came out, I felt Oliver Stone had lost his mind.

I like Oliver Stone and I don't think he has lost his mind. Not at all.

 

[benbess]

I agree that Nixon is one of Stone's strongest movies. Completely blows Frost/Nixon out of the water imho.

My ratings of the Stone movies I've seen:

The Hand: B (Twilight Zone-like horror film starring Michael Caine. I was one of the few to see this theatrically back in 1981.)
Platoon: A-
Wall Street: B+
Talk Radio: B
Born on the Fourth of July: A-
The Doors: B-
JFK: C- (As the OP mentioned, much of JFK is made up)
Nixon: A
Alexander Extended: B+
World Trade Center: B
Snowden: A-

Probably some of those grades are generous, but when he's good, I think he makes lasting and politically-relevant films. I guess I think that Nixon is is best film.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Well, JFK is not made up as much as it is the perspective of Garrison and the idea that we should look closer at what actually happened. They had to dramatize a lot of the ideas being presented so I have always felt the criticism of the film was more than a little unfair. Yes, it was a magnet for people into conspiracies but I have never felt it was meant to mislead or that it was intended to say "This is what really happened."

I think Stone always knew and always contended he was making a film about a guy that tried to examine what may have went on...not that Stone was sitting in a room somewhere ranting at the ceiling that "they never got the guys that did this and I am going to show everyone!"

Sadly, I think people unfairly painted Stone as a nut because he made a film about a controversial subject and took the path less traveled by. JFK is a great film and an excellent ride. Sure, you can't take everything in it as fact but that is the nature of major motion pictures. It is speculative fiction and I don't know how that came to be out of bounds for some folks.

 

[TravisR]

JFK is a great film and an excellent ride.

Yeah, I think there's plenty of conspiracy theory in it (that, largely, I don't buy into) but based on cinematic quality, I think JFK is a great movie and one of the best two or three movies that Stone has made.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Yeah, I think there's plenty of conspiracy theory in it (that, largely, I don't buy into) but based on cinematic quality, I think JFK is a great movie and one of the best two or three movies that Stone has made.

Yes, it is a movie about a conspiracy to kill the president so I don't think people should be hard on it because it goes down that path. That's almost like going to see a comedy and then complaining that it was funny...that was the point, right?

 

[Ruz-El]

To my recollection of Garrisons book and the book "Crossfire", JFK is 100% factual into the conspiracy investigations that Garrison did.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I wonder if the reaction to JFK would have been different, or if it would be remembered differently today, if it had been titled differently. When you call your movie "JFK", a lot of people are going to assume that it's either a film about JFK or a factual examination of something about him. The title sets up an expectation for a film that's totally different than the one Stone made. If it had been called "Conspiracy" or something like that, maybe it would have allowed more people to view it for what it was, rather than what they might have hoped for.

I haven't seen the movie in probably 20 years, but I remember liking it while not really buying it. Which is totally fine!

 

[Ruz-El]

That's a really good point Josh. My memory is hazy, but I seem to recall when it was announced that Stone was doing JFK, it was described as a biopic. I know when I went with my dad on a preview we had no idea it was all assassination theory. We were blown away by it. Dad was a conspiracy nut though so we had read the book "Crossfire" that Stone used as reference, as well had seen the "Men Who Killed Kennedy" doc that came out in 1988. Dad was the only person I knew who had actually taken a crack at reading the Warren Commission.

So while I don't think Stone got the conspiracy right, or sure there was a conspiracy at all, I'm more than a little biased in liking it haha. As far as film-making go, It's absolutely one of the greats on a technical level.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I remember visiting my uncle in New Mexico, who was a big movie fan, and we all took turns picking out movies during my vacation there. One night it was my turn, another night it was my cousin, one night my aunt, the next my uncle, etc. My uncle's pick was JFK, which I'm 99% sure we watched on VHS. (No memory as to whether it was a letterboxed edition, my uncle sought those out when possible.) I also didn't know anything about the film going into it, except that I didn't think that Kevin Costner looked much like Kennedy. Obviously, there's a really good reason for that -- he's not playing Kennedy. I think it's a long movie but I spent the evening at the edge of my seat. It was definitely riveting. As a piece of fiction, it's a phenomenally entertaining conspiracy story, and as a dramatization about obsession and paranoia, it's fascinating. I don't think I could accept the film's conclusions as a plausible explanation for the assassination, but I can easily accept that the characters in the film chasing the story do believe it.

I saw Nixon on my own - rented it on VHS the day it came out. I would have been 12 or 13 at the time, and I can't imagine that it was a very popular rental among that age group, but I've always been deeply fascinated by Nixon and his presidency, so I was eager to see Oliver Stone's take on it. What surprised me, knowing how Stone felt about the Vietnam war and Nixon's policies, was how sympathetic the film ultimately was to him. Anthony Hopkins doesn't look a thing like Nixon, but he channels the character so well that by the end of the film, I completely accept him in the part.

Both are films I haven't seen since either the end of the VHS era or near the beginning of the DVD era; I should probably revisit both.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Well, JFK is not made up as much as it is the perspective of Garrison and the idea that we should look closer at what actually happened. They had to dramatize a lot of the ideas being presented so I have always felt the criticism of the film was more than a little unfair. Yes, it was a magnet for people into conspiracies but I have never felt it was meant to mislead or that it was intended to say "This is what really happened."
.

Except I think Stone does believe he got most of the "facts" right. I get the impression he genuinely believes the nonsense he shoveled at the screen...

 

[Ruz-El]

Except I think Stone does believe he got most of the "facts" right. I get the impression he genuinely believes the nonsense he shoveled at the screen...

He probably does, I know dad believed some of it. Nonsense or not, it's accurate and factual to the Jim Garrison investigation that it is telling.