Sergio Leone Web Board

Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: Tucumcari Bound on September 18, 2008, 10:38:43 AM

Title: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on September 18, 2008, 10:38:43 AM

A dramatic retelling of the post-Watergate television interviews between British talk-show host David Frost and former president Richard Nixon.

This is one of the films I'm really looking forward to this Holiday Season. I've always been fascinated with Nixon. I just hope it's not far-left propaganda. We shall see.

Trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibxs_2nDXUc

Official Website:

http://www.frostnixon.net/

Poster Unveiled:

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20210536,00.html
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: Groggy on September 18, 2008, 10:55:51 AM
It may be of interest to one or two of you that Frank Langella is starring in an upcoming Broadway revival of A Man for All Seasons. O0
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on September 18, 2008, 10:58:07 AM
It may be of interest to one or two of you that Frank Langella is starring in an upcoming Broadway revival of A Man for All Seasons. O0

If I was in New York, I'd probably go see him in that show. I love the play and he's a good actor.
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: Groggy on September 18, 2008, 11:15:47 AM
Maybe we can bend DJ's arm so he'll go see it and report back. :D
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on September 18, 2008, 11:44:54 AM
Maybe we can bend DJ's arm so he'll go see it and report back. :D

That might be an idea. Hey DJ, get your tickets ASAP! O0
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: Groggy on November 17, 2008, 03:48:36 PM
I mentioned in the Australia thread, I saw the trailer for this at my screening of Changeling. It looks really good (granted trailers aren't worth that much), and its limited release indicates that it's a must-see if you're remotely interested in the subject matter.
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 18, 2008, 11:31:20 AM
Why would this be more interesting than just watching the actual Frost/Nixon interviews?
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on November 18, 2008, 12:15:48 PM
Why would this be more interesting than just watching the actual Frost/Nixon interviews?

Because we like films jenkins and maybe we would like to learn a little of what happened behind the scenes before, during, and after this famous encounter between the two men. I know I do anyway.
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: Whalestoe on November 18, 2008, 02:39:04 PM
Isn't the movie based on the play and not the actual interviews?
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on November 18, 2008, 03:45:33 PM
Isn't the movie based on the play and not the actual interviews?

Well, this subject matter was made famous on broadway but this story is digging a little deeper into what happened behind the scenes.
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: Whalestoe on November 19, 2008, 03:10:00 AM
Well, this subject matter was made famous on broadway but this story is digging a little deeper into what happened behind the scenes.

Okay. Got it. Well, either way this movie looks great. I'm also a pretty big sucker for Sam Rockwell, so it's good to see him in any film.
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 19, 2008, 11:21:07 AM
Well, this subject matter was made famous on broadway but this story is digging a little deeper into what happened behind the scenes.
Uh huh. You mean they take actual interview material and then add a bunch of stuff to it that's all made up. I guess I'd rather have history than drama in this case.
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: Groggy on November 29, 2008, 11:19:57 AM
It may or may not be of interest that a production of this with Stacey Keach (!) as Nixon is coming to Pittsburgh next week. I'll have to look into ticket prices, if it's within reason I'll try and make a showing. If not, I'll go see the movie next weekend.
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 14, 2008, 11:19:53 AM
Interesting comments comparing the stage play with the movie (from http://thenewnixon.org/2008/12/11/further-notes-on-frostnixon/):

Quote
Further Notes On Frost/Nixon

December 11, 2008 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under American Politics, Entertainment, Frost/Nixon, Movies, Presidents, Richard Nixon, U.S. History

The difference in overall tone between Peter Morgan’s play Frost/Nixon and the film version directed by Ron Howard is noteworthy.  The action of the play, right up to the point where David Frost begins to interview President Nixon, is light in tone, frequently comic, and sometimes almost frothy.   By contrast, Howard’s treatment of the material is solemn from beginning to end.  In an earlier post I referred to the horror-movie tone of the scene in which Michael Sheen, as Frost, gazes into a TV monitor and confronts the shadowy figure of Frank Langella’s Nixon; this plays without any noticeable tinge of irony.

In the play, the character of James Reston Jr. functions as a narrator looking back on the events of thirty years before with a certain mixture of pride and defensiveness about having been so doggone determined to “get” Nixon; in the film, Sam Rockwell, as Reston, portrays him as completely convinced, in 1977 and in the present, of the righteousness of his task.  His only regret is that he is, so to speak, playing Sam Gamgee to Sheen/Frost’s Bilbo, slogging to a Mordor disguised as a serene home by the Pacific, and destined to stand by while his cohort goes in for the kill.  (One also has the impression that this is how the real-life Reston sees himself.)

This is typical of Howard’s approach to the whole project.  In the play, Bob Zelnick is presented as being a bit cynical about Reston’s holier-than-thou attitude; Oliver Platt’s portrayal of Zelnick in the film doesn’t quite get that across.  Several of the play’s comic highlights have been eliminated; others have been altered to bolster dramatic instead of comic effect, as when RN begins a taping by asking Frost if he did any “fornicating” the night before.  In the play, this is very funny while also getting across the point that RN is using it to discombobulate Frost before the cameras roll; in the film, its comic aspect is played down.

Another prime example is the scene in which Irving Lazar (who, incidentally, disliked the nickname “Swifty” and would not have been likely to use it when calling someone, as the film has him do), Nixon, Frost, and producer John Birt meet for the contract signing.  Onstage, the scene plays out with plenty of laughs; Frost announced the check is to be paid “to the order of Richard Nixon” and Lazar instructs that it be made out to himself; Frost writes the check and begins to hand it to RN, but Lazar grabs it, explaining that industry practice requires that he handle it and take his commission first.   This scene, by all accounts, really happened, and that adds to its humor.  But Howard chooses to end the scene at the point where Frost finishes writing the check.  At first I wondered if he was sending some sort of message about payment etiquette to his own agent, but on second thought I’m inclined to think that he simply wanted to avoid a big laugh from audiences.  This would explain why Toby Young, a British actor with a very accomplished comic sense, plays Lazar in a rather low-key, realistic manner, compared to the way the character is delineated in the stage version.

This brings us to a very notable difference between play and film: the way in which the interview scenes are handled.  When the play was running on Broadway it was pointed out in many articles that two of its climactic scenes - RN’s drunken phone call to Frost and Jack Brennan’s interruption of the taping during the session about Watergate - were invented and had no basis in the historical record.  (As noted earlier at TNN, Diane Sawyer and Frank Gannon have both pointed out that Kevin Bacon’s rather humorless, hypersuspicious Brennan has little resemblance to the real-life figure - though it must be granted that Bacon does, from time to time, attempt to put some human nuances in the character, beyond what the narrow portrayal in the script provides.)

But, as Ty Burr remarks in the Boston Globe review cited by John Taylor below, the point where the interview scenes of Frost/Nixon the movie diverge most thoroughly from those in the play comes when Langella/Nixon utters the line “when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”

In 1977, RN spoke these words not during a discussion of the Watergate break-in and the events subsequent to it, but in response to Frost’s question about the 1970 “Huston Plan.”  The transcript of that exchange makes clear that RN was addressing the problems of domestic terrorism and violent attacks on public welfare and safety that the Huston Plan was intended to handle, and drawing a comparison to Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War which puts his argument into perspective. Whether one disagrees with it or not, it is a carefully reasoned statement, when put in context.  The play reproduces this transcript, albeit with some rather minor cuts and changes.

But Howard (and, presumably, Morgan acting as screenwriter, though one would be interested to know if he has explained this in interviews) takes that sentence completely out of the context in which RN used it and plops it right into a discussion of Watergate, making it look as if RN were insisting that no matter what he decided in response to the events ensuing after June 17, 1972, his status as President would guarantee their legality.  Now, it may well be that in 2008, a lot of Americans who never saw the Frost interviews with RN or remember them only dimly think that Nixon said those words in response to a question specifically about the Watergate cover-up.  But he did not.  And it serves no good purpose for Howard to alter the record to make it look as if he did.  In fact, even in the context of the film the distortion of the statement weakens the dramatic effect, even as delivered by an actor as skillful as Frank Langella.

This is one reason why I would say that Frost/Nixon the play, even though it bears more or less the same relationship to history that Shakespeare’s plays bear to actual events (as I commented on David Stokes’s radio show), still gives a more genuine picture of Nixon as man and political figure than Frost/Nixon the movie manages to do.  When Rev. Stokes brought up Oliver Stone’s movie Nixon I had seen Peter Morgan’s play but not Ron Howard’s film, and I thought that if the movie stayed close to what I saw onstage, it would have more right to be called true-to-life than was the case with Stone’s pseudo-Brechtian venture into propaganda.  But, unfortunately, the changes made in Frost/Nixon’s transition from stage to screen nearly all tend to veer toward Stone-type caricature.  Which, in the long run, may diminish its prospects at Oscar time.  As for its chances of box-office success, I have the feeling that audiences on Christmas Day who aren’t in the mood for kiddie and family fare will be more likely to see Brad Pitt in Benjamin Button. The classic movie about Richard Nixon has yet to be made.
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: Groggy on January 10, 2009, 08:32:45 PM
My review, for your consumption.

Quote
It's nice to watch a movie that treats the audience as an adult rather than an ADD-riddled teenager. Last night I watched Doubt, which greatly exceeded my expectations, and today, after a long wait, Ron Howard's adaptation of Frost/Nixon, and both films - probably because of their theatrical roots - have a refreshing amount of respect for their audience. Although Frost/Nixon has a number of flaws and doesn't quite reach the heights of last night's film, it remains an enjoyable and worthwhile film.

The film's plot revolves around the attempts of British talk show host David Frost (Michael Sheen)'s attempts to get disgraced ex-President Richard Nixon (Frnak Langella) to agree to an interview. Despite the advice of his skeptical producer (Matthew Macfayden), Frost decides it will be good as a publicity stunt if nothing else - little realizing that his whole career will be on the line. He hires two researchers (Oliver Platt and Sam Rockwell), who are driven by disgust with Nixon's shameful presidency. Nixon, meanwhile, is driven by a desire to clear his name, and his advisors (Kevin Bacon and Toby Jones) hope that Frost will be an easy target, allowing Nixon to clear his name. After much negotiating and argument, the debates go forward - but it seems that the seasoned Nixon is in control of the situation. It all comes down to a final confrontation over the Watergate scandal, as Frost tries to corner Nixon into confessing and apologizing for his wrong-doing.

At first, Frost/Nixon disappointed me. It stumbled out of the gate by trying to come off as a docu-drama, complete with annoying hand-held camerawork and "interviews" with the film's major characters. This type of filmmaking usually annoys the crap out of me, and it gave me a sense of dread in this one. Moreover, Ron Howard's direction is frustratingly static and workmanlike throughout; the movie has the most undistinguished, banal cinematography I've seen in a major studio film at least since W. The early scenes of character development and backstory are rather stiff and dry, and I must say I was feeling. But once it gets to the actual interviews, Frost/Nixon takes off: the last sixty minutes are absolutely gripping and absorbing cinema, watching these two men square off. Frost/Nixon doesn't quite shake off the stage the way Doubt does, simply because Howard won't let it; but it makes the most of its limitations and becomes an entertaining and thoughtful piece of work.

The movie is undoubtedly character driven, and provides a pair of intriguing protagonists. David Frost is a pretty typical "playboy who finds a cause" character type a la Tom Hanks in Charlie Wilson's War; he has a comfortable career as a talk show host and humorist, living a playboy lifestyle, hanging out with Neil Diamond and Hugh Heffner and dating the likes of actress Caroline Cushing (Rebecca Hall). His subordinates are committed to bringing Nixon to account for his criminality, but Frost's concern throughout is his career; he's riding largely on his own money and finds that the interview will make or break his career (and life). Frost as depicted is not an overly original character, but he's a compelling enough protagonist to hold our interest.

Nixon, meanwhile, is a haunted man, at the end of a successful career besmirched by Watergate and associated scandals. He remains convinced what he did was right (or at least excusable), and is obsessed with the idea of clearing his name. Driven by neuroses and insecurities - his famous temper, intolerance of contrary opinions, and overwhelming inferiority complex, and yet with a fierce intelligence, superficial charm and likeability - he is every bit the driven, focused and ruthless ambitious Nixon, even in forced retirement. It's to the immense credit of Howard, Frank Langella and playwright Peter Morgan that they don't simply make Nixon a caricature, but a sympathetic and complex character.

Michael Sheen's performance is by far the lesser of the two leads. Sheen brings a good amount of humor to the role, but not much edge; it doesn't approach his great performance as Tony Blair in The Queen, for a start. He's an enjoyable character and Sheen holds his own for the most part, but it's nothing spectacular by any means. However, his co-star more than makes up for it.

To say Frank Langella gives a good performance as Richard Nixon would be a horrible understatement. He is phenomenal. He inhabits the skin of Nixon, portraying every aspect of this unsavory but fascinating character. The film deserves much credit for not depicting Nixon as merely a monster, but a haunted, disgraced man driven by long-lasting demons, insecurities and self-loathing shame. His drunken nighttime phone call to Frost is one of the movie's highpoints, where he spews his rage and disappointment to a not-unwilling listener, and the final debate where he's cornered into admitting his guilt is one of the best pieces of acting ever filmed. Langella is simply marvellous, giving one of the best performances I've seen. If he doesn't win Best Actor (or at least receive a nomination), it will be a crime.

The supporting cast is also worth noting. Sam Rockwell and Oliver Platt are both excellent as Frost's research assistants with their own agenda (and a cynical sense of humor), and Matthew Macfayden does nice work as Frost's flustered producer. Rebecca Hall is lovely as David's actress girlfriend, and Kevin Bacon does his usual fine work as Nixon's fiercely loyal top aide.

Frost/Nixon is not such a great movie that I will demand you go out and see it at once. But if you want a film that is entertaining and will treat you as an adult, then it's certainly worth a look. If nothing else, you'll get to see one of the best performances to come down the pike in a long time.

http://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2009/01/frostnixon.html (http://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2009/01/frostnixon.html)
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 10, 2009, 09:37:05 PM
Quote
His drunken nighttime phone call to Frost is one of the movie's highpoints, where he spews his rage and disappointment to a not-unwilling listener, and the final debate where he's cornered into admitting his guilt is one of the best pieces of acting ever filmed. Langella is simply marvellous, giving one of the best performances I've seen.
But did these things actually happen? I appreciate that you are looking at the film entirely as an entertainment, but ultimately, how it does or doesn't serve the historical record is an issue that has to be addressed. If this were about a fictional former head of a fictional country, interviewed by a fictional host, we wouldn't give the material any attention at all. The drama, good as it may be, is not enough. The actual Frost-Nixon interviews are available on DVD: wouldn't it be interesting to compare those with Frost/Nixon?
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: Groggy on January 10, 2009, 09:44:33 PM
The phone call didn't, but that's dramatic license. I haven't sen the interviews so I have no comment there; I'm taking the film as self-contained until I do. That's not really my concern as a critic (should I have the conceit to call myself such).
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: ShortFuse on January 12, 2009, 02:59:52 AM
Damn, I was hoping for this to be a twink film.
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 30, 2009, 09:30:28 AM
Quote
Frost/Nixon’ - Lies, Damn Lies and Dramatizations [Excerpt]

Posted By Geoff Shepard On January 30, 2009 @ 5:15 am

Background:

The movie is a dramatization about the taping of almost thirty hours of interviews done by British TV host David Frost with former President Richard Nixon, with the help of Frost’s two researchers, Bob Zelnick and James Reston, Jr. The edited version—four ninety minute segments–was broadcast in 1977 to great critical acclaim and drew the then-largest worldwide audience for a news interview—with an estimated forty-six million viewers in America alone.

The movie’s difficulty is that from Nixon’s furtive glance after giving the victory sign as he boarded the helicopter on the day of his resignation to the vignette about the Gucci loafers, its most dramatic moments bear little resemblance to what actually happened during the interviews themselves. How can we know this for sure? For those caring to look, there are three primary sources—all prepared by Frost or one of his researchers.

First, a DVD exists of the actual broadcasts, issued in Great Britain with an afterword by Sir David Frost. While readily available, apparently none of the movie’s reviewers saw fit to view the actual broadcast, since they show that time and again the movie version alters, omits or improperly edits what was actually said by Nixon and by Frost.

Second, there Frost’s own book, published in 1978 and entitled, “I Gave Them a Sword”: Behind the Scenes of the Nixon Interviews. As the inside scoop on ‘the story behind the story’, at least from Frost’s point of view, anything of significance not actually contained in the taped interviews themselves would surely have been mentioned in his 320 page book.

Finally, there is the 181 page booklet by James Reston, Jr. that was published in 2007. Entitled, “The Conviction of Richard Nixon, The Untold Story of the Frost/Nixon Interviews,” it attempts—albeit some thirty years later—a rather audacious historical re-write designed to show how he (and he alone) brought Nixon down by discovering an unknown tape recording whose last minute use by Frost was not only the ‘gotcha moment’ in the interviews, but proves Nixon was at the center of the Watergate cover-up.

The booklet was hardly a critical success—and Reston’s claim so patently absurd as to be dismissed entirely– but for one reader: Peter Morgan, who based his stage play on Reston’s version of events. Reston—and not Frost—also is the one on whom Ron Howard relied for any historic accuracy in the movie. As we shall see, their reliance was entirely misplaced.

While the movie fairly portrays the Frost team’s extensive preparations and his two researchers’ massive disappointment in Frost’s seeming inability to nail Nixon on either foreign or domestic initiatives of his presidency, its portrayal of Nixon’s actions and statements is patently fraudulent.

Fortunately, while awaiting announcement of the Academy Awards, we can review what was actually filmed or written by the very people on Frost’s team that appear in the movie—and contrast that to the movie’s version of events. This is not a situation of being faced with competing claims from Nixon supporters; it is an exercise in comparing what Frost said happened then—and what people have been filmed as saying in the movie.

Specifics:

At least three participants are unfairly maligned in “Frost/Nixon”: David Frost, who is portrayed as a washed up, witless dandy; Jack Brennan, Nixon’s aide-de-camp, who is cast the heavyweight protecting Nixon from himself; and former President Nixon, who is portrayed by Frank Langella as doing and saying things Nixon simply did not do or say.

Let us begin with a simple example: The movie would have us believe that David Frost picked up Caroline Cushing on his flight to California by offering to include her in his first meeting with Nixon, scheduled for the very next day. In his book, Frost carefully details that first meeting, naming all participants–without any mention of Cushing. Yet he does mention her appearance and participation in several other events. A harmless dramatization? A little white lie just to show where Frost’s interests really lay? Perhaps, but factually incorrect and a substantial disservice to both Frost and Cushing.

Another dramatization has to do with the Gucci loafers worn by Frost and commented upon by Nixon. The movie ends with Frost giving Nixon a pair as a gift—apparently oblivious to the fact that Nixon disdained them as effeminate. Isn’t it intriguing that this little vignette—which provides such clear insight into the personalities of both Nixon and Frost–is nowhere mentioned in Frost’s own book? Oh, it could have happened—but it didn’t. The Gucci loafer scenes are a complete and knowing fabrication.

Aside from such dramatizations, there are far more serious breaches of historic accuracy, including:

    • Interview Payment: Frost not only paid Nixon $600,000 for the interviews (as claimed), he also promised him twenty percent of the profits—an omitted fact that shows the project was more of a joint venture between Nixon and Frost. For the most part, they were not adversaries; they had a common interest in the interviews being acclaimed and widely distributed.

    • Unsettling Pre-Interview Questions: The claimed pattern of Nixon asking Frost seemingly innocent but deliberately unsettling questions as each taping session was about to begin continues this deliberate misrepresentation: by and large, the interviews were not an adversarial proceeding.

    • Opening Question: While the opening question (about why Nixon did not destroy the tapes) did indeed occur, Frost’s book notes that he had informed Jack Brennan of his intent and obtained Brennan’s concurrence before that morning’s filming began—so Nixon was hardly surprised at the question–and no doubt agreed it would heighten viewer interest.

    • “Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal”: Nixon actually made this statement during their interview, but it was in the context of why members of any administration should not have to worry about being indicted by a later administration based upon a differing legal interpretation. While others might disagree, this is precisely the point the outgoing Bush administration would make about their aggressive questioning of certain terrorists (i.e.: waterboarding): If done under presidential order after full legal review, those carrying out the instruction should not be subject to second-guessing—or government employees could never feel safe in carrying out presidential directives. The movie’s treatment is a deliberate and substantive misrepresentation.

    • Brennan’s Threat to Ruin Frost: Brennan made the statement, but in the context of improper editing (where Nixon’s responses might be omitted) and not with regard to any questioning about Watergate. In fact, Frost characterizes their exchange as sort of an informal compact that he would fairly present Nixon’s accomplishments and they would not try to stonewall questions about Watergate.

    • Midnight Phone Call: Among the most dramatic moments of the film is Nixon’s late night call to Frost, supposedly after having too much to drink—surely a poignant moment where Nixon reveals his inner torments. Since no mention whatsoever of this call is made in Frost’s book, we can only conclude it to be another complete and deliberate fabrication.

    • Brennan Interruption: Another telling and dramatic movie moment occurs as Nixon (purportedly) is about to confess to the crimes of Watergate and Brennan deliberately invades the set to interrupt the proceedings. In truth—as written by Frost himself—Brennan merely held up a sign saying, “Let him talk”, and it was Frost himself who decided to call for a time out in the filming—by telling Nixon they needed time to change tapes–with the intent of enabling Nixon to collect his thoughts before proceeding. Frost details his following discussion with Brennan, but makes no mention whatever of Brennan then counseling Nixon in private.

    • Nixon “Confession”: In the movie version, Nixon is caught by his own words on the tapes and confesses to being a part of the Watergate cover-up. But his words from those interviews were changed in the movie version. What Nixon did (which was most appropriate) was to apologize to the Nation for his mistakes during Watergate—rather a distinct difference. Frost’s book details how everyone—on both teams—seemed pleased with their Watergate exchange. Indeed, even the 1977 DVD cover blurb characterizes that part of the interview as, “culminating in the unprecedented sight of a president apologizing to his people.”

    • Farewell Meeting: The movie ends with Frost calling upon Nixon in his San Clemente home following the broadcasts and that Nixon, dressed in shirt sleeves and musing about golfing in retirement, implies that he had been unmasked and undone. In contrast, Frost wrote that he had met with Nixon for their final time in his office just after the second program on foreign policy had been broadcast [i.e.: before any broadcast of their Watergate segment]–so no such observations by Nixon could have occurred. There is no mention of shirt sleeves, only an allusion to Nixon’s staff always being careful to wear coats and ties when entering his office. By then, Nixon was hard at work on his Memoirs, the second of the ten books he would write. While Frost doesn’t dare say so, it is even possible they congratulated each other on the apparent success of their venture.


Full article here:  http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/gshepard/2009/01/30/frostnixon-lies-damn-lies-and-dramatizations/
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: Groggy on January 30, 2009, 09:56:08 AM
Great article Jinkies, thanks for posting. It doesn't alter my opinion of the film in and of itself, but it has dwindled somewhat in my mind in the weeks since I've seen it; certainly more than Doubt, Slumdog or Benjamin Button. I'd have to watch it again but I doubt it will hold up as well to repeat viewings as the similarly themed/constructed Charlie Wilson's War, which I've watched 3-4 times and still enjoy a great deal. I doubt I'll think much about this film over the coming months, or bother to buy the DVD.
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 30, 2009, 11:06:03 AM
I'm kinda interested in having the DVD of the actual interviews just to be clear about what was said. I can't see any purpose in having a DVD of the pseudo-interviews.
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: titoli on February 17, 2009, 03:25:22 PM
Good thriller. 8\10
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: Groggy on February 17, 2009, 03:48:11 PM
I'm not sure I'd consider it a thriller, but I guess that's not horribly inaccurate
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: PowerRR on February 17, 2009, 09:25:19 PM
Thriller? eh...no
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: Dust Devil on June 01, 2011, 07:07:30 AM
Finally watched this: I must say it wasn't great, but it had bits that came close to that classification, and a truly magnificent performance by Frank Langella. And it was fairly... entertaining... Hm, believe it or not, and I don't mean for a political thriller/drama. I did not find it very dramatic, actually, which was a good thing. Usually, with this sort of flicks, the risk is pretty high they'll overdo it, but here they didn't, to my surprise, almost as if they weren't even trying. Again, aside Langella's Nixon the others (including Sheen's Frost) were mere fillers, which seems right, as this is the only movie about him (that I know of) that doesn't demonize him, and/or engage in circus acts with his persona. Very sympathetic portrayal.


(around a) 7.5/10
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: Dust Devil on June 01, 2011, 07:10:19 AM
I don't much care for the real stuff but this is worth a watch.
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: Groggy on June 01, 2011, 11:03:45 AM
Finally watched this: I must say it wasn't great, but it had bits that came close to that classification, and a truly magnificent performance by Frank Langella. And it was fairly... entertaining... Hm, believe it or not, and I don't mean for a political thriller/drama. I did not find it very dramatic, actually, which was a good thing. Usually, with this sort of flicks, the risk is pretty high they'll overdo it, but here they didn't, to my surprise, almost as if they weren't even trying. Again, aside Langella's Nixon the others (including Sheen's Frost) were mere fillers, which seems right, as this is the only movie about him (that I know of) that doesn't demonize him, and/or engage in circus acts with his persona. Very sympathetic portrayal.


(around a) 7.5/10

Not a fan of the Oliver Stone movie?

I might even argue this film is excessively sympathetic to Nixon, but what do I know?
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: Dust Devil on June 01, 2011, 01:37:23 PM
Not a fan of the Oliver Stone movie?

Tried watching it a couple of times in years back, until I gave up (very probably for good). Very, very tedious (though Hopkins wasn't that bad).

I might even argue this film is excessively sympathetic to Nixon, but what do I know?

What's there to argue? :P
Title: Re: Frost/Nixon (2008)
Post by: Dust Devil on June 01, 2011, 01:48:37 PM
This is interesting (Langella): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhQJ_1JdTyw