curtis martin ...who Richard Nixon was and every detail about the Watergate Scandal. But if you're under the age of, let's say 45 or so, you're pretty much screwed. No amount of Oscar caliber acting or great writing or incredibly inventive direction and editing can save a movie that is totally of its time. You will be lost despite the brilliance involved. It really is a brilliant film, but there is no exposition--it does assume that you know all about Nixon and Watergate. Back in 1983, everyone still did. Now, not so much.One dumbed down solution if you're Gen-X and younger: rent and watch "All the President's Men" with Redford and Hoffman first. Then watch the archive footage of Nixon speeches included in the DVD supplements. Then some of this will make sense.

Gloede_The_Saint You know Godard was wrong when he said all you need to make a film is a girl and a gun. You just need a gun, a room and a talented actor.I just watched something I barely could believe was possible a great film shot in one room and with only one actor. Altman is a master of only using one set and creating great suspense and drama but here he just used one man: Philip Baker Hall. Now the whole thing is a bit stagey and wildly exaggerated, Hall also overplays at time but this is one guy in one room for 90 bloody minutes and it isn't boring! The story is rather good. A crushed Richard Nixon who seems to have gone insane rambles about some sort of Secret Honor and how he staged Watergate and about conspiracies while he throws out racial slurs and other forms of profanity. This results in quite a few pretty funny scenes but also a few quite emotional ones.The way Altman creates drama is by using the camera for everything it's worth and creating several genius shots. I won't claim it's perfect. A few bits are a little silly actually but this film is definitely great and I can't deny that creating something like this is a true work of pure genius.My rating is 9/10, depending on how you look at it the rating could be higher or lower. For pure originality it's a masterpiece without many peers that's for sure (though the limited resources makes it loose that title). I also want to praise the cinematography which I felt was quite good and rather before it's time.

pejamo A great film, if you can find it. I first saw it nearly ten years ago, and it still is fresh in my memory. This is a one man show (Hall is the only actor in the film) and an adaptation of a stage performance. The simple premise: Several years on from his disgrace, Nixon is in San Clemente and sits down with a bottle of Chivas and his old friend, the tape recorder, to spill his guts before he commits suicide. Hall is captivating in the role and his descent into drunken madness is a masterful performance. One of Altman's best. A bit of a history lesson, but one that is more interested in theater than in truth. Still, great theater reveals its own truths and there is plenty here to chew on.

noel-1 Made 11 years before Oliver Stone's "Nixon", with Anthony Hopkins, Robert Altman's direction of Philip Baker Hall in his gritty portrayal of Richard Millhouse on his last night in the Whitehouse, rehashing out all his problems over a bottle of scotch. Fumbling and bumbling around the office with tape machines and casting vague hints into the real motives and players behind the whole debacle. A very watchable and interesting film for anyone interested in Nixon/Watergate. A better film than Oliver Stone's version in spite of a much smaller budget.