CAUTION: Spoilers ahead (in this spoiled movie)
The portrayal of Nixon was an overblown caricature. Nixon is as flat as a character can get. Why does it take 3 hours to show that Nixon is a nervous sweaty, twitchy, manic. To quote a review by Mick LaSalle, "Stone presents a Nixon who couldn't have gotten Pat to vote for him." The real Nixon was a powerful, driven man for much of his career. He commanded an audience and delt with authority with Mao and the rest. People supported him to their political death because he had a STRONG personality, despite his inability to charm women. Of course his "demons" overtook him, but I would have liked to see a believable progression of his character.
The film couldn't decide whether it was a documentary or a dramatization. Why were there fabricated newsreels of things that didn't happen? Too much of the "facts" in the movie were speculation by Oliver Stone and I couldn't trust any of the movie. Couldn't Oliver Stone find something better to do than flash bad camera angles at us. Dark lighting, scratchy film, black and white, ... all of these are useful in their place, and Stone is good with them, but they were so overused in the movie as to make them pointless. I don't need a strobe light flashing in my face, or choppy dialogue that doesn't quite fit the lips, to realize that the main character is loosing touch with reality. (On my first point, was Nixon out of touch with reality from the beginning?) I have a camcorder and I got bored playing with the black and white feature after the first week. I wish Stone had gotten bored of his.
The symbolism was overdone and too obvious. Blood coming from Nixon's steak on the boat? The movie was mysterious and ominous because of bad lighting and camera angles, not because of subtle dialogue and emotion.
This movie could have been great. Stone does a terrific job of portraying the demented side of Nixon. If it were boiled to about 40 minutes and an hour of realistic portrayal of other aspects of Nixon's personality and life were added, it could have excelled.
The portrayal of Nixon was an overblown caricature. Nixon is as flat as a character can get. Why does it take 3 hours to show that Nixon is a nervous sweaty, twitchy, manic. To quote a review by Mick LaSalle, "Stone presents a Nixon who couldn't have gotten Pat to vote for him." The real Nixon was a powerful, driven man for much of his career. He commanded an audience and delt with authority with Mao and the rest. People supported him to their political death because he had a STRONG personality, despite his inability to charm women. Of course his "demons" overtook him, but I would have liked to see a believable progression of his character.
The film couldn't decide whether it was a documentary or a dramatization. Why were there fabricated newsreels of things that didn't happen? Too much of the "facts" in the movie were speculation by Oliver Stone and I couldn't trust any of the movie. Couldn't Oliver Stone find something better to do than flash bad camera angles at us. Dark lighting, scratchy film, black and white, ... all of these are useful in their place, and Stone is good with them, but they were so overused in the movie as to make them pointless. I don't need a strobe light flashing in my face, or choppy dialogue that doesn't quite fit the lips, to realize that the main character is loosing touch with reality. (On my first point, was Nixon out of touch with reality from the beginning?) I have a camcorder and I got bored playing with the black and white feature after the first week. I wish Stone had gotten bored of his.
The symbolism was overdone and too obvious. Blood coming from Nixon's steak on the boat? The movie was mysterious and ominous because of bad lighting and camera angles, not because of subtle dialogue and emotion.
This movie could have been great. Stone does a terrific job of portraying the demented side of Nixon. If it were boiled to about 40 minutes and an hour of realistic portrayal of other aspects of Nixon's personality and life were added, it could have excelled.