i must have seen a different film!!

A different way of telling a story

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN is not only a stunning addition to the 1970s wave of conspiracy thrillers but also a great film dealing with the subject of journalism, up there with SPOTLIGHT as the best of its type. The story, which all true and about how two Washington Post reporters broke the Watergate scandal, is completely riveting, one of those suspense-fuelled movies that works despite not relying on generic action cliches or even an exciting score. The completely likeable Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffmann are perfectly cast as the intrepid reporters who refuse to take no for an answer, but the whole cast is spot on here. It's a film which just runs and runs and runs, ever complex yet easy to follow, that might just be one of the most important movies of the decade.

We're in June 2017 and "All The Presiden's Men" from 1976 reminds us that film, sometimes, is the strongest historical document we've got. The Washington Post raising alarm signs then and now. Alan J Pakula is one of the greatest directors of his generation. Jane Fonda during her AFI Lifetime Achievement Award told us that working with Alan J Pakula was like dancing with Fred Astaire. Here the chemistry between Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman is such that, at times, it feels like a romantic comedy, warts and all. Astonishing. Hal Holbrook as Deep Throat gives the feeling of "thriller" to this incredible story. We know how the story ends but that doesn't diminish our nervousness that it's perhaps a bit of impatience, just like now in 2017, to see justice be done.

Alan J. Pakula directed, in 1976, a film with such rich source material as the nation's first ever president to resign, Richard Nixon. All the President's Men, starring Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford, as the two reporters for The Washington Post that uncovered the details of the Watergate break-in that spanned all the way to the White House involving the president. Reminding the audience of a time in which the printed word reigned supreme and reporters were also detectives, capable of uncovering anything, All the President's Men was a brilliantly written film, incredibly deserving of taking home Oscar's top prize for Best Original Screenplay.As the 1972 presidential election is upon the nation, there is a break-in at the Watergate. Bob Woodward (Robert Redford) begins investigating the break-in, believing there to be deeper implications behind the break-in. Inserting himself into Woodward's work on the story, fellow reporter Carl Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman) begins investigating as well. Both men are a bit on the outs with the paper, with Woodward being newer on the staff and Bernstein who rarely finishes his stories. The two are an unlikely duo for such serious work, yet begin getting answers that are impressing and surprising themselves and their colleagues. Along with the constant guidance from Deep Throat (Hal Holbrook) to "follow the money" which leads them to uncover large amounts of money being deposited into the accounts of the Watergate burglars and where that money came from exposing how high up the ladder the money trail goes. The closer they get to the truth, the more desperate the implicated parties are to squash the story, the reporter's reputations, and The Washington Post itself.I had been meaning to see All the President's Men for some time but continually avoided it due to a distaste of Dustin Hoffman's acting. I still hold out hope that I just haven't seen the right Hoffman films so I finally saw Pakula's 1976 feature. Dustin Hoffman was perfect in the seedy, underhanded role of Carl Bernstein. An added surprise was seeing Martin Balam's name rolling by on the opening credits. No matter how small his role is, he always brings great dimensions to his character. Robert Redford was also brilliantly cast as the diligent, serious reporter, Bob Woodward. In fact, Robert Redford may have been best in this role and truly missed out on any acclaim from Oscar for this role. All the President's Men, the better-acted version of the 2015 film Spotlight, has within it a recipe for a boring movie. Reporters gathering facts, typing, talking amongst themselves, and dead-ends are highlighted brilliantly against the perfect production design of the film preventing the audience from realizing the movie spans nearly two and a half hours. Alan J. Pakula also shows his directorial prowess by picking the absolute perfect place to end his film, at the inauguration of Richard Nixon's second term in office. The audience knows what's coming, we're invested in the work the reporting duo has done and are acutely aware that the seemingly perfect scene of Richard Nixon accepting office is nothing of the illusion that it seems. Closing the film with the public looking one way while the reporters are in the background of the shot, feverishly working on the story that will bring the president's misdeeds to the nation was a stroke of brilliance, sure to stay with the audience long after the film ends.

Hi everybody, in case you didn't know - this film is overrated.Scriptwriter William Goldman's name is so often bandied about or name-dropped as the par excellence of great screen writing, and this film is supposed to be an example of how creative and subversive the seventies were in film, euphemistically dubbed Hollywood's "second golden era" by movie historians, but mostly because the eighties were so disposable and crass.Goldman's writing is definitely in shape, and he has a great ear for dialogue, but there's little in this film to really engage a viewer; there's two reasons the film isn't going to impress modern audiences, and I'll outline them here:Firstly, 80% of the film details failed and attempted interviews with faces or just telephone voices around Washington leading up to the Watergate scandal, and they are just what they are - conversations, anonymous office memorandums, conversations-whilst-driving, conversations-on-peoples-doorways, conversations-outside-government- buildings. Everyone of course either has fears for their identity, lies outright or is just too vague to attribute in a proper news vehicle, and basically the sheer repetitiveness of the scenes becomes stifling, rather than growing in dramatic tension in any meaningful way.The second reason this film doesn't hold up much today is because times have changed so radically. Discovering a politicians connections, work contacts, previous relationships, investments and properties can be done by anyone, whereas back then audiences were supposed to see the film as a struggle by Bob Woodward (AKA: The Little Guy) taking on Washington . . . and . . . winning!!!My last reservation about this film is that (to it's credit) it explores both the hypocrisy and abuses of power in so-called democratic societies, but at the same time rewards the viewer with inherently bogus ideals about the power of the individual. In the 2010's, after decades of deregulation and stage-managed electoral campaigns, all of which are hired or paid off by corporate elites, its completely obvious to any thinking person that the ideals of modern democracy are a sham, and that this film is about fairy-tale wish fulfillment, not the power of investigative journalism. To clarify, on any given policy debate issue, the actual power of the citizenry to effect the outcome process is zero, regardless of their strong support, indifference, or alarm. So, in effect, this film makes theater out of the idea of greater individual liberty when no such liberties make genuine effect for our common good.As a final note, this film never really shows any significant characters outside of the white male demographic anywhere at the Washington Post, let alone anywhere operating in Washington, with a few female office assistants aside. I would call it a well written film, with a few excellent scenes featuring an anonymous source (famously nicknamed Deep Throat) and basically a lack of narrative range and of course a predestined outcome. Some things age badly, and this film definitely has, I would recommend reading the screenplay alone if Watergate is a pet interest of yours, or the so-called "political thriller" genre.