I agree partially with Ebert’s review - the part where he praises the technique and execution of the film. However, Ebert criticizes All the President’s Men as playing up the process, and failing to show the results. I think, however, that the emphasis is in the right place. This is not a movie about the Watergate scandal in a traditional sense. This is a movie about the reporters who exposed the Watergate scandal. Ebert may criticize the film for glossing over the most “exciting” parts of the Watergate narrative - such as the fallout and resignations - but this film is driven by the excellent acting, the masterful cinematography, and intrigue of the scandal and all of it’s nuances. I think in this way Ebert’s criticism misses the point of the movie. We may see journalistic practices repeated in the plot, and we may not have even seen Nixon pictured beyond some stock footage at the beginning of the film, but the strength of the characters, the fascinating developments and suspense, and great camera work carry it to success.
In the Movie All the Presidents Men the cinematographer Gordon Willis does an outstanding job at adding emotion and action to the film. I enjoyed the fast pace and interesting plot line, which made the story so interesting. I have only praise for this film, for it is one of the best historical movies I have seen in my lifetime. I broadened my understanding on the obstacles and challenges a reporter, now and at the time the film was based, take on in every article they write. In this specific story I noticed that Bernstein and Woodward had to face the challenges of even getting the information to base their article on. Not only was barely anyone willing to talk to them but they also had to use unidentified sources, which caused them to lack hard information. It was also very unclear to the reporters if the information they were given was even true. Lacking in hard facts clearly sets a difficult boundary to break and makes it a lesser convincing article. By showing all of these challenges I learned further information into the world of journalism. I learned that not only will it be difficult to find sources, yet also to rely fully on those sources. After reading Eberts review I questioned the movie. Was it safe to say that the movie is repeating the writing process and just bringing us to an end that could already be determined? No. Maybe because he wrote this review in 1976 when the story was more current he thinks viewers would feel the way he did, but now, almost 40 years later, this film is a great way to teach not only the process of journalism, yet also the history of the event and how difficult it was to find information on it. I completely full-heartedly disagree with the review. This film deserves a 4 out of 4 for being not only entertaining but also educational in more than one way.
“All the President’s Men” shows the story of two men who had already uncovered the Watergate scandal long before it came into the public eye.
Directed by Alan Pakula and written by William Goldman, this production tells a true and complicated story of journalism. It follows Bob Woodard and Carl Bernstein (played by Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman), journalists for the Washington Post, in 1974 as they unravel the mystery of Watergate.
These two face many obstacles, such as demanding editors and the difficulty in finding trustworthy information when the government is trying to cover up the truth. They constantly attempt calling, interviewing, and meeting people who could be valuable sources for their story, but find many dead ends and denial instead of facts. They also have to face editors who do not believe in their story or force them to get specifics that only make their job harder than it already is.
While the movie may drag on and seem a bit long, the constant slowness and waiting communicates what these journalists had to go through with their story, which if they could get enough information on, would be ground-breaking to the entire nation. There are many times when the viewer is filled with anticipation over simple scenes of pauses of silence as a character ponders what the can and will say next.
The movie beautifully displays how the power of journalism and the truth it exposes. The opening scene of a blank white space and then a shockingly loud typewriter show the beginning of a story and how the typewriter and hope for the truth sustain journalists to keep going.
Then, the final scene shows a small, televised Nixon with the gunfire of his new presidency while Woodard and Bernstein work furiously on their typewriters. The gunfire turns into the typewriter, like that from the first scene, as it states all the consequences that Nixon and his associates faced for Watergate. These scenes speak of how journalism has an almost weapon-like power of revealing reality to others, putting those who thought that they had power, such as President Nixon, into enclosement, like in a television screen.
But is all the work that journalists put into stories worth finding a truth people may not even want to hear?
The producer did a great job showing what happened during journalism in the Watergate scandal in the movie All the President’s Men (1976). This movie was fantastic! The actors portraying Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, the two reporter’s covering the scandal for the Washington Post, both displayed interesting characteristic to get out all the information for the scandal. Bernstein and Woodward both were not scared to pursue all the people in the case which displayed great courage and hard work. There were also many obstacles like confidentiality which made both reporters jobs difficult as well as made the movie intriguing. The confidentiality led to Woodward pursuing evidence for the case from Deep Throat; a senior government official.Furthermore, the beginning and the ending were both interesting. In the beginning it zoomed out of a piece of paper displaying the date of the Watergate while being typed noisily on a typewriter. This caught my attention because I didn’t know what the noises were until the date was displayed. It made me think and finally understand that it was a typewriter. In the end they ended with typing similar to the beginning. This showed the timeline of events after Bernstein and Woodward typed out the full story of the Watergate scandal which ultimately ended with Richard Nixon’s resignation. I learned for journalism, reporters use different methods to get to all the facts. One that stood up to me was displayed by Bernstein and Woodward when they accepted coffee to continue an interview once.
I agree with Ebert’s response to the movie All the President’s Men. He made an excellent point of how the film incorporated the great work of journalists during the Watergate Scandal. The actors of the reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein should be applauded for their brilliance. Like Ebert said, Woodward and Bernstein both displayed courage and exhilaration of the scandal. Also, he mentioned how newspaper movies always used to over exaggerate the excitement. This movie did a great job of following the work of reporters whether they were at the Washington Post or at their own homes. Lastly, Ebert said that all the elements of the movie did not make it a satisfying movie experience. I had to disagree with how he said that the cycle of reporting was repetitive and how the viewer knew the movie’s method made the movie worse. Considering that Ebert wrote this review almost 37 years ago, I understand why he thought it was an unnecessary to repeat the same journalistic process. In today’s time, I thought the repetition of the journalistic process was interesting since it is so much different than our modern technology.
“All the President’s Men” opens with an intriguing scene of pounding typewriter keys that grabs the viewer’s attention and keeps it until the very end, which is a scene depicting the exact same thing. “All the President’s Men” is directed by Alan Pakula and is brought to life with wonderful cinematography by Gordon Willis, who adds suspense and tension through his contrast of colors and dark lighting. Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman couldn’t be better in their roles and add a factor to the movie that makes it much more intense and suspenseful. Redford and Hoffman play the reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington post who covered the Watergate scandal in 1972. They conduct an investigative report on the case and follow a multitude of leads conducting countless interviews and searches to get their story. With well-acclaimed director and actors, there is no questioning why “All the President’s Men” received 4 Oscars and 4 Golden Globes. The film made something that would have been relatively boring filled with tension and suspense. Willis makes subtle changes to the lighting and sound to add intensity that gives viewers quickening pulse rates as Woodward pounds up the stairs to the garage to get the information from Deep Throat to save his story. The film leaves viewers feeling as though they are listening in on the line as Bernstein talks, hanging on to every word because with every new piece of information the story deepens. With excellent cinematography and acting, “All the President’s Men” does a phenomenal job depicting the Watergate scandal creating suspense and excitement. The film is a must see for all and a 4 out of 4.
Imagine a story so big that once you discover it you will be remembered for at least the next thirty years. All the President’s Men is the movie of two reporters of the Washington Post, Bob Woodward(Robert Redford) and Carl Bernstein ( Dustin Hoffman), who uncover the scandal involving Richard Nixon and Watergate. The film is directed by Alan Pakula and written by William Goldman. This is based off a true story of two young reporters who have no idea what they are getting into. It starts with the robbery at the Watergate complex, where the democratic committee has their files. The reporters dig deeper and deeper to discover mysterious sums of cash deposited in the Republican committee, which eventually leads to President Nixon himself. Throughout the film Woodward and Bernstein are facing slamming doors and people changing their word to deny everything about the whole scandal. The reporters are also getting enormous pressure from the editor to have more sources and accurate details. I thought this film was fantastic and really portrayed what being a reporter is all about. Through showing the uncoverage of the watergate scandal, It is clear that a good reporter is relentless, never taking no for an answer. The lighting of the film also created suspense in dark garages and the newsroom. On the either hand, this film had so many names, dates, and false leads that the story was confusing, and sometimes difficult to follow. I also thought the pacing made the movie exciting, even when the work the actors was doing was not. The opening and last scenes left the viewer completely satisfied. Finally, the beginning and ending were spectacular. Both times, it was of a typewriter writing the news, then a flash of light. Overall, I would definately recommend it to anyone.
All the President’s men offered both entertainment and an insightful perspective about journalism. This movie revealed the process that journalist undergo to write a story and find the truth. Woodward (Redford) and Bernstein (Hoffman) relentlessly pursue their leads, employing various smart tactics to obtain the truth. Woodward makes frequent calls to find all the people associated with the Watergate scandal. Bernstein is also particularly good at extracting information through personal interviews. They pestered interviewee with brief, yet essential questions. They also used any resources necessary to obtain the information. Woodward interacted with Deep Throat even though he wasn’t necessarily reliable. However, through their efforts, they managed to expose the truth behind the Watergate scandal. I was thoroughly entertained by the suspense in this movie. The movie tells the story of Watergate scandal from the perspective of journalist, which reveals the process in which investigative journalist do in real life. Thus, the audience learns what working as an investigative journalist is like, while providing some satisfying entertainment. In addition the cinematography was well made. The stark contrast of dark and bright primary colors really suited the film well and contributed to its ominous mood. I expected this movie to be like a boring monotone documentary, but it kind of resembled a suspense/mystery movie. Kudos to the filmmaker for that. Thus, I would give the movie a 4/4 star rating.
All The Presidents Men is not only a brilliant example of fine cinematography but also tells the tale of the gripping uncovering of the Watergate scandal. The movie’s lighting and music is the icing on the cake to an overall pleasing movie experience. If the movie just showed a screenplay it would be good. If the movie were a table read of the screenplay with the realistic acting of reporters Woodward and Bernstein, played by Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford, it would be great. Because this movie combined beautiful cinematography, superb acting and suspenseful storyline, this movie was, for lack of a better word, awesome! The dynamic duo of reporters nicknamed “Woodstein” endured every roadblock a reporter can. From people refusing to talk, to the White House discrediting their works, these journalists truly showed their passion for the field in their refusing to give up. This story was the uncovering of the Watergate scandal so as expected, their was much digging to be done in order to discover the truth. A reporter is the combination between a police officer and an author. They need to learn the truth, sometimes putting their lives in danger, but they must also eloquently display the story in order to inform the general public. As an aspiring journalist I learned the true eagerness a reporter has to pursue their story. A journalist must be a true aficionado for the field of journalism. Woodstein is a true inspiration and role model for all aspiring journalists.
This is an enjoyable motion picture. I enjoyed the exaggeration of the challenges Woodward and Bernstein were forced to overcome. All the President’s Men has two remarkable actors, which improve the film and make the scenes realer. There are some boring scenes, but being a journalist is not all excitement. The explicit detail in the plot may have made the film more difficult to follow, but I thought the sharp contrasts in the cinematography is another great element easy to pick up on. Overall, I believe this to be an exceptionally well crafted film. Woodward and Bernstein were faced with a multitude of issues, ranging from an impatient editor and uncooperative sources. Once they acquired the information necessary to comprise their article, the subjects involved vehemently denied their participation the conspiracy. The pair of journalists needed to be even more industrious, and risked the Washington Post becoming the subject for many political figures’ vituperative remarks. We must respect the men for the obstacles they conquered, and appreciate the quality of work they put out despite those challenges. From this film, I learned getting to the bottom of the story, or getting all of the answers, can be tedious and aggravating. Sometimes, sources will be stubborn, but the importance of the story takes priority, and sometimes it will be necessary to drive the source into confessing as much as they know. The technique of both Bernstein and Woodward are necessary for quality journalism, because their two styles balance each other out. I usually find movie critics to take themselves and their jobs far too seriously, because often times they can’t see the entertainment aspect of the picture. Sometimes, the movies are so terrible it’s impossible NOT to notice the despicable acting, plot, sense of humor, or action scenes. But these disgusting piles of garbage that are called films are somewhat rare. I thought it to be interesting how honestly Ebert wrote his review. Usually, critics love to be contrarians and jump all over the boring aspects of this movie, but Ebert says the repetition takes away from the film. I agree with that statement, but I think repetition comes with the job. Going back and fixing stories is what all journalists do, and the point of the movie demonstrates how difficult the process can be.
I agree partially with Ebert’s review - the part where he praises the technique and execution of the film. However, Ebert criticizes All the President’s Men as playing up the process, and failing to show the results. I think, however, that the emphasis is in the right place. This is not a movie about the Watergate scandal in a traditional sense. This is a movie about the reporters who exposed the Watergate scandal. Ebert may criticize the film for glossing over the most “exciting” parts of the Watergate narrative - such as the fallout and resignations - but this film is driven by the excellent acting, the masterful cinematography, and intrigue of the scandal and all of it’s nuances. I think in this way Ebert’s criticism misses the point of the movie. We may see journalistic practices repeated in the plot, and we may not have even seen Nixon pictured beyond some stock footage at the beginning of the film, but the strength of the characters, the fascinating developments and suspense, and great camera work carry it to success.
ReplyDeleteIn the Movie All the Presidents Men the cinematographer Gordon Willis does an outstanding job at adding emotion and action to the film. I enjoyed the fast pace and interesting plot line, which made the story so interesting. I have only praise for this film, for it is one of the best historical movies I have seen in my lifetime. I broadened my understanding on the obstacles and challenges a reporter, now and at the time the film was based, take on in every article they write. In this specific story I noticed that Bernstein and Woodward had to face the challenges of even getting the information to base their article on. Not only was barely anyone willing to talk to them but they also had to use unidentified sources, which caused them to lack hard information. It was also very unclear to the reporters if the information they were given was even true. Lacking in hard facts clearly sets a difficult boundary to break and makes it a lesser convincing article. By showing all of these challenges I learned further information into the world of journalism. I learned that not only will it be difficult to find sources, yet also to rely fully on those sources.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Eberts review I questioned the movie. Was it safe to say that the movie is repeating the writing process and just bringing us to an end that could already be determined? No. Maybe because he wrote this review in 1976 when the story was more current he thinks viewers would feel the way he did, but now, almost 40 years later, this film is a great way to teach not only the process of journalism, yet also the history of the event and how difficult it was to find information on it. I completely full-heartedly disagree with the review. This film deserves a 4 out of 4 for being not only entertaining but also educational in more than one way.
All the President’s Men Movie Review
ReplyDeleteBy: Caterina Baffa
“All the President’s Men” shows the story of two men who had already uncovered the Watergate scandal long before it came into the public eye.
Directed by Alan Pakula and written by William Goldman, this production tells a true and complicated story of journalism. It follows Bob Woodard and Carl Bernstein (played by Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman), journalists for the Washington Post, in 1974 as they unravel the mystery of Watergate.
These two face many obstacles, such as demanding editors and the difficulty in finding trustworthy information when the government is trying to cover up the truth. They constantly attempt calling, interviewing, and meeting people who could be valuable sources for their story, but find many dead ends and denial instead of facts. They also have to face editors who do not believe in their story or force them to get specifics that only make their job harder than it already is.
While the movie may drag on and seem a bit long, the constant slowness and waiting communicates what these journalists had to go through with their story, which if they could get enough information on, would be ground-breaking to the entire nation. There are many times when the viewer is filled with anticipation over simple scenes of pauses of silence as a character ponders what the can and will say next.
The movie beautifully displays how the power of journalism and the truth it exposes. The opening scene of a blank white space and then a shockingly loud typewriter show the beginning of a story and how the typewriter and hope for the truth sustain journalists to keep going.
Then, the final scene shows a small, televised Nixon with the gunfire of his new presidency while Woodard and Bernstein work furiously on their typewriters. The gunfire turns into the typewriter, like that from the first scene, as it states all the consequences that Nixon and his associates faced for Watergate. These scenes speak of how journalism has an almost weapon-like power of revealing reality to others, putting those who thought that they had power, such as President Nixon, into enclosement, like in a television screen.
But is all the work that journalists put into stories worth finding a truth people may not even want to hear?
The producer did a great job showing what happened during journalism in the Watergate scandal in the movie All the President’s Men (1976). This movie was fantastic! The actors portraying Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, the two reporter’s covering the scandal for the Washington Post, both displayed interesting characteristic to get out all the information for the scandal. Bernstein and Woodward both were not scared to pursue all the people in the case which displayed great courage and hard work. There were also many obstacles like confidentiality which made both reporters jobs difficult as well as made the movie intriguing. The confidentiality led to Woodward pursuing evidence for the case from Deep Throat; a senior government official.Furthermore, the beginning and the ending were both interesting. In the beginning it zoomed out of a piece of paper displaying the date of the Watergate while being typed noisily on a typewriter. This caught my attention because I didn’t know what the noises were until the date was displayed. It made me think and finally understand that it was a typewriter. In the end they ended with typing similar to the beginning. This showed the timeline of events after Bernstein and Woodward typed out the full story of the Watergate scandal which ultimately ended with Richard Nixon’s resignation. I learned for journalism, reporters use different methods to get to all the facts. One that stood up to me was displayed by Bernstein and Woodward when they accepted coffee to continue an interview once.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ebert’s response to the movie All the President’s Men. He made an excellent point of how the film incorporated the great work of journalists during the Watergate Scandal. The actors of the reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein should be applauded for their brilliance. Like Ebert said, Woodward and Bernstein both displayed courage and exhilaration of the scandal. Also, he mentioned how newspaper movies always used to over exaggerate the excitement. This movie did a great job of following the work of reporters whether they were at the Washington Post or at their own homes. Lastly, Ebert said that all the elements of the movie did not make it a satisfying movie experience. I had to disagree with how he said that the cycle of reporting was repetitive and how the viewer knew the movie’s method made the movie worse. Considering that Ebert wrote this review almost 37 years ago, I understand why he thought it was an unnecessary to repeat the same journalistic process. In today’s time, I thought the repetition of the journalistic process was interesting since it is so much different than our modern technology.
“All the President’s Men” opens with an intriguing scene of pounding typewriter keys that grabs the viewer’s attention and keeps it until the very end, which is a scene depicting the exact same thing.
ReplyDelete“All the President’s Men” is directed by Alan Pakula and is brought to life with wonderful cinematography by Gordon Willis, who adds suspense and tension through his contrast of colors and dark lighting. Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman couldn’t be better in their roles and add a factor to the movie that makes it much more intense and suspenseful.
Redford and Hoffman play the reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington post who covered the Watergate scandal in 1972. They conduct an investigative report on the case and follow a multitude of leads conducting countless interviews and searches to get their story.
With well-acclaimed director and actors, there is no questioning why “All the President’s Men” received 4 Oscars and 4 Golden Globes. The film made something that would have been relatively boring filled with tension and suspense. Willis makes subtle changes to the lighting and sound to add intensity that gives viewers quickening pulse rates as Woodward pounds up the stairs to the garage to get the information from Deep Throat to save his story. The film leaves viewers feeling as though they are listening in on the line as Bernstein talks, hanging on to every word because with every new piece of information the story deepens.
With excellent cinematography and acting, “All the President’s Men” does a phenomenal job depicting the Watergate scandal creating suspense and excitement. The film is a must see for all and a 4 out of 4.
Imagine a story so big that once you discover it you will be remembered for at least the next thirty years. All the President’s Men is the movie of two reporters of the Washington Post, Bob Woodward(Robert Redford) and Carl Bernstein ( Dustin Hoffman), who uncover the scandal involving Richard Nixon and Watergate. The film is directed by Alan Pakula and written by William Goldman. This is based off a true story of two young reporters who have no idea what they are getting into. It starts with the robbery at the Watergate complex, where the democratic committee has their files. The reporters dig deeper and deeper to discover mysterious sums of cash deposited in the Republican committee, which eventually leads to President Nixon himself. Throughout the film Woodward and Bernstein are facing slamming doors and people changing their word to deny everything about the whole scandal. The reporters are also getting enormous pressure from the editor to have more sources and accurate details. I thought this film was fantastic and really portrayed what being a reporter is all about. Through showing the uncoverage of the watergate scandal, It is clear that a good reporter is relentless, never taking no for an answer. The lighting of the film also created suspense in dark garages and the newsroom. On the either hand, this film had so many names, dates, and false leads that the story was confusing, and sometimes difficult to follow. I also thought the pacing made the movie exciting, even when the work the actors was doing was not. The opening and last scenes left the viewer completely satisfied. Finally, the beginning and ending were spectacular. Both times, it was of a typewriter writing the news, then a flash of light. Overall, I would definately recommend it to anyone.
ReplyDeleteAll the President’s men offered both entertainment and an insightful perspective about journalism. This movie revealed the process that journalist undergo to write a story and find the truth. Woodward (Redford) and Bernstein (Hoffman) relentlessly pursue their leads, employing various smart tactics to obtain the truth. Woodward makes frequent calls to find all the people associated with the Watergate scandal. Bernstein is also particularly good at extracting information through personal interviews. They pestered interviewee with brief, yet essential questions. They also used any resources necessary to obtain the information. Woodward interacted with Deep Throat even though he wasn’t necessarily reliable. However, through their efforts, they managed to expose the truth behind the Watergate scandal.
ReplyDeleteI was thoroughly entertained by the suspense in this movie. The movie tells the story of Watergate scandal from the perspective of journalist, which reveals the process in which investigative journalist do in real life. Thus, the audience learns what working as an investigative journalist is like, while providing some satisfying entertainment. In addition the cinematography was well made. The stark contrast of dark and bright primary colors really suited the film well and contributed to its ominous mood. I expected this movie to be like a boring monotone documentary, but it kind of resembled a suspense/mystery movie. Kudos to the filmmaker for that. Thus, I would give the movie a 4/4 star rating.
All The Presidents Men is not only a brilliant example of fine cinematography but also tells the tale of the gripping uncovering of the Watergate scandal. The movie’s lighting and music is the icing on the cake to an overall pleasing movie experience. If the movie just showed a screenplay it would be good. If the movie were a table read of the screenplay with the realistic acting of reporters Woodward and Bernstein, played by Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford, it would be great. Because this movie combined beautiful cinematography, superb acting and suspenseful storyline, this movie was, for lack of a better word, awesome!
ReplyDeleteThe dynamic duo of reporters nicknamed “Woodstein” endured every roadblock a reporter can. From people refusing to talk, to the White House discrediting their works, these journalists truly showed their passion for the field in their refusing to give up. This story was the uncovering of the Watergate scandal so as expected, their was much digging to be done in order to discover the truth.
A reporter is the combination between a police officer and an author. They need to learn the truth, sometimes putting their lives in danger, but they must also eloquently display the story in order to inform the general public. As an aspiring journalist I learned the true eagerness a reporter has to pursue their story. A journalist must be a true aficionado for the field of journalism. Woodstein is a true inspiration and role model for all aspiring journalists.
Colin Emerson
ReplyDeleteThis is an enjoyable motion picture. I enjoyed the exaggeration of the challenges Woodward and Bernstein were forced to overcome. All the President’s Men has two remarkable actors, which improve the film and make the scenes realer. There are some boring scenes, but being a journalist is not all excitement. The explicit detail in the plot may have made the film more difficult to follow, but I thought the sharp contrasts in the cinematography is another great element easy to pick up on. Overall, I believe this to be an exceptionally well crafted film. Woodward and Bernstein were faced with a multitude of issues, ranging from an impatient editor and uncooperative sources. Once they acquired the information necessary to comprise their article, the subjects involved vehemently denied their participation the conspiracy. The pair of journalists needed to be even more industrious, and risked the Washington Post becoming the subject for many political figures’ vituperative remarks. We must respect the men for the obstacles they conquered, and appreciate the quality of work they put out despite those challenges. From this film, I learned getting to the bottom of the story, or getting all of the answers, can be tedious and aggravating. Sometimes, sources will be stubborn, but the importance of the story takes priority, and sometimes it will be necessary to drive the source into confessing as much as they know. The technique of both Bernstein and Woodward are necessary for quality journalism, because their two styles balance each other out. I usually find movie critics to take themselves and their jobs far too seriously, because often times they can’t see the entertainment aspect of the picture. Sometimes, the movies are so terrible it’s impossible NOT to notice the despicable acting, plot, sense of humor, or action scenes. But these disgusting piles of garbage that are called films are somewhat rare. I thought it to be interesting how honestly Ebert wrote his review. Usually, critics love to be contrarians and jump all over the boring aspects of this movie, but Ebert says the repetition takes away from the film. I agree with that statement, but I think repetition comes with the job. Going back and fixing stories is what all journalists do, and the point of the movie demonstrates how difficult the process can be.