"Mark Felt: The Man Who Brought Down the White House" (this title is a bit too sensational for my liking, almost works against the idea and subject this way, just "Felt" would have been much better) is a new 100-minute movie and the most recent release by writer and director Peter Landesman. After collaborating with Will Smith and Oprah previously, his lead actor is Oscar nominee Liam Neeson. He plays the man whose books were also taken as the basis for this movie here: Mark Felt and the film's title already gives away the basis of the film here as he is the one who massively contributed to bringing down Richard Nixon as a consequence of the Watergate affair. By the way, the real Felt died less than a decade ago and he was the associate director of the FBI already under the lead of Hoover. This is referenced early on in this film too, but after Hoover's death the film is all about the title character for sure. And how he deals with issues in his professional as well as private lives. The latter refers to his marriage as well as the apparently complicated relationship with his daughter, but I must say that this was executed really not well at all. It was totally rushed in to be honest and I don't know if they were really expecting an emotional reaction from the audience too when Felt finds his daughter in the end. It was pretty embarrassing and should have been left out completely.
Luckily with the connection to the FBI and Deep Throat and Watergate, the film does a much better job, but this is of course also the key story. I think Neeson did a pretty good job overall, even if it is a bit sad to see him aged that hard. Still, it is probably not a performance or movie that will get a great deal of attention from the Oscars, probably none at all. But why? It's dealing with one of the crucial events from 20th century American politics. It's difficult to say why. Maybe because most of the supporting players, if not all of them, were somewhat underwhelming and with that I don't mean the performances, but the material they were given. The best example is Eddie Marsan, a really versatile actor, who was reduced to a one-scene character. Maybe it was that they would not take any attention away from Neeson. By the way, Michael C. Hall (Dexter) is in it too, even if almost unrecognizable. While telling an interesting story, I still feel that the whole subject is still not 100% clear with what was going on behind the scenes that I would say that this hurts the film's overall perception a bit too. It's tough to make a revealing movie when not everything is actually revealed. Ironically enough, the subject itself is also about revelations back then already. So yes, it wasn't a bad watch, but I think the subject offered a lot more than they managed to achieve here. It's not among the list of the defining and best edge-of-seat political thrillers from recent years. Quite a pity indeed. Nonetheless, I still give it a thumbs-up, a cautious one though as the last pretty great scene and shot can't make me forget about the great deal of mediocrity before. Politics may not really be Landesman's thing. If you like Neeson or the genre, preferably both, then you probably won't be disappointed here.
Luckily with the connection to the FBI and Deep Throat and Watergate, the film does a much better job, but this is of course also the key story. I think Neeson did a pretty good job overall, even if it is a bit sad to see him aged that hard. Still, it is probably not a performance or movie that will get a great deal of attention from the Oscars, probably none at all. But why? It's dealing with one of the crucial events from 20th century American politics. It's difficult to say why. Maybe because most of the supporting players, if not all of them, were somewhat underwhelming and with that I don't mean the performances, but the material they were given. The best example is Eddie Marsan, a really versatile actor, who was reduced to a one-scene character. Maybe it was that they would not take any attention away from Neeson. By the way, Michael C. Hall (Dexter) is in it too, even if almost unrecognizable. While telling an interesting story, I still feel that the whole subject is still not 100% clear with what was going on behind the scenes that I would say that this hurts the film's overall perception a bit too. It's tough to make a revealing movie when not everything is actually revealed. Ironically enough, the subject itself is also about revelations back then already. So yes, it wasn't a bad watch, but I think the subject offered a lot more than they managed to achieve here. It's not among the list of the defining and best edge-of-seat political thrillers from recent years. Quite a pity indeed. Nonetheless, I still give it a thumbs-up, a cautious one though as the last pretty great scene and shot can't make me forget about the great deal of mediocrity before. Politics may not really be Landesman's thing. If you like Neeson or the genre, preferably both, then you probably won't be disappointed here.