Frost/Nixon (the new Ron Howard film)

'Frost/Nixon' is a heavy-hitting historical drama centered on the intense clash between former President Richard Nixon and the legendary TV interviewer David Frost. Directed by the Academy Award winner Ron Howard, the film features a sharp script penned by Peter Morgan, the mind behind 'The Queen' and 'The Last King of Scotland'. The story picks up three years after Nixon resigned from the presidency, when he finally agreed to sit down for an exclusive televised interview to face questions regarding the Watergate scandal that ultimately ended his political career. Hosted by Frost, the confrontation that unfolded in front of those cameras became a defining moment in television history. Leading the charge is Frank Langella, who actually already walked away with a Tony for this exact role in the stage production.

http://www.frostnixon.net/

I just finished this one and I’m giving it a solid four stars.
As a director, Ron Howard finally feels like he's hit his stride here; he handles a heavy narrative like this with real maturity. Personally, I don't think he deserved that Oscar for "A Beautiful Mind" years ago—he should have gotten it for this instead. Sadly, it'll likely just end with some nominations, serving as yet another example of a director winning an Oscar for a film that didn't earn it while being overlooked for a much better work.

The weakest link in the movie (and I know this might sound strange to people once they see it) is actually the lead—Frank Langella playing President Nixon. Honestly, I've just had my fill of these types of actors who specialize in impressions lately, like Cate Blanchett in The Aviator or Jamie Foxx in Ray.

That said, from a directing and screenwriting standpoint, the film is excellent. What struck me most was watching what felt like a verbal heavyweight boxing match between a former champ and a rising contender. I also thought Jacko Brenner was the best supporting element; it's another one of those Kevin Bacon roles that will probably go unnoticed during awards season, much like what happened with him in Mystic River.

Anyway, if you value good filmmaking, you really ought to check this out. It's easily one of the best releases of the year.

I caught some clips of the actual interview. Really hoping this turns out to be at least half as good.

Adam Moore said:I’ve watched bits and pieces of the actual interview. I can only hope this adaptation turns out to be halfway decent.

And? 🙂

Initially, I found myself thinking, "Surely Langella will outshine Hopkins," but as the film progresses, you realize Langella is formidable in his own right.

What struck me was how completely the movie pulled me in; before sitting down to watch it, I couldn't have cared less about the whole affair. Honestly, even now that it's over, my interest remains unchanged. How much does it truly matter if the man who broke the law eventually admits he was wrong?

8 out of 10.

Honestly, the film is spectacular. It’s truly impressive how Howard managed to take such a dry, arguably unappealing subject matter and spin it into something so captivating. It’s a quiet, dignified contender for an Oscar, and frankly, I wouldn't be at all opposed to seeing him take home the trophy.

9/10

goldenhound32 said:And? 🙂

At first I was thinking, "Man, is Langella actually gonna outshine Hopkins?" But as the movie goes on, you realize Langella is really bringing something special to the table.

I loved how much it sucked me in. Honestly, before I started watching, I couldn't have cared less about what happened, and even now that it's over, I still feel the same. Like, does it even matter if the guy who broke the law finally admits he did it?

8/10.

It's an okay movie, but nothing crazy. 6.5/10. Langella was good, Hopkins was good, but it just doesn't touch the drama of those actual interviews. And I'm assuming that last question was rhetorical. 😁

velvetcrane57 said:It's such an interesting movie from someone like her, especially since the subject matter isn't exactly flashy.

Man, you're totally tripping. For Americans, this is basically our version of the Nuremberg trials, especially for anyone who lived through the Nixon era. The topic is anything but boring.

Adam Moore said:It’s an okay film, I suppose, but nothing more. A 6.5/10 at best. Langella was fine, Hopkins was fine, but it doesn't come anywhere close to the raw drama of the actual interviews. As for that last question... I hope it was rhetorical. 😁

I am genuinely curious—what kind of movie would this have been if you hadn't already sat through the real thing?

It isn't rhetorical. Why does a confession even matter once the verdict regarding the consequences has already been reached (which, in this specific instance, resulted in nothing)?

To me, it feels like some guy walks into a courtroom, gets convicted, the judge hands down the sentence, and then asks if he has anything to say—only for him to *then* admit to the crime he was just sentenced for.

Adam Moore said:you're dead wrong. this is to Americans what the Nuremberg trials were to Europe (including Germany)—it’s specifically about those who lived through the Nixon era. the subject matter isn't unappealing at all.

Sure, it was 🙂
The question is how much interest there is now. It's sitting at a measly 10,000 votes on IMDb.

And let's be honest... we aren't even American, so it's even less compelling to us.

The thing is, Nixon basically got off easy—sure, he was impeached and lost the presidency, but Ford practically gave him a full pardon, which drove a lot of people crazy. Because of Watergate, Nixon walked away without much of a penalty when he really should have been facing jail time. Plus, by insisting his mistakes were all done in the best interest of the country and the public, he managed to stay somewhat relevant in political circles. He essentially brushed off the guilt by framing Watergate as just a series of unfortunate events, and since there wasn't definitive proof otherwise, he played it off—even though most Americans knew he was guilty. That interview felt like a catharsis for the whole nation and for Nixon himself; things finally felt settled. The end result, though, was Nixon being totally ousted from politics and cemented as one of the ultimate villains in American history.

It’s a fascinating case if you're into politics, but it's also gripping from a human perspective—like watching a showdown between two completely opposite personalities. Honestly, most people don't care much about politics unless it involves local 🤷 news, man. I guess ever since the end of WWII, I've viewed Americans like Romans and their president like an emperor, so maybe that's why I find this stuff so addicting...

Ugh, honestly, the movie probably would’ve hit a little harder if I hadn't watched those interviews first. But since Howard focused so much on the behind-the-scenes stuff anyway, I doubt it really changed my take too much.

So, I finally sat down and watched the movie. Honestly? It was pretty good—solid 7/10.
It did, however, make me rethink my entire perspective on Nixon. In this version, he comes across as a genuinely decent guy in quite a few scenes, which was unexpected.
What really worked for me was the depiction of the "Great Man" archetype. Whether you view that as a positive or a negative thing, the film nails the idea that he is, undeniably, a figure of massive scale. You can see it most clearly during that handshake scene.
My only real gripe is how the film trivializes the whole web of circumstances that led to everything. It almost makes it seem like his downfall boiled down to just one drunken night and a single phone call.
I also had an issue with how they portrayed Nixon at the very end—specifically during that final dialogue and the aftermath. He seems to regret his past actions a bit too much. I got this distinct sense of loneliness from him, as if being loved by the public was the only thing that ever truly mattered to him. He even touches on that concept during their last exchange.
Ultimately, that ending felt a little pathetic, as silly as that might sound for a film of this caliber.
The acting was decent enough, nothing extraordinary. Langella definitely deserved an Oscar nomination, though I don't think he was going anywhere near winning the Oscar itself.
Bottom line: it’s worth a watch. My rating stays at a 7/10, and I have a nagging feeling this might be one of those films that ends up being a total loser at the awards ceremony.

Spent my whole afternoon watching it and honestly? No regrets. It’s easily the best of the Oscar nominees, even if I get why it didn't take home the trophy.

Langella definitely earned an Oscar for his performance, but since I haven't seen Milk, I can't really say how Penn stacked up. That said, Frost/Nixon is a solid 9/10 for me. It's super tense—even though you pretty much know the ending, the acting is so spot-on you'll feel like you're watching actual archival footage. Definitely worth a watch. 👍

Is this movie still playing? I haven't had a chance to catch it yet, but I'm dying to go.

The movie hit the torrent sites.

I was expecting more—nothing special, just one of those films I'll probably forget by tomorrow morning. 6/10. Honestly, I expected better from Howard..

Look, I’ve always considered Howard one of my absolute favorites—truly one of the best directors out there—but this? This is easily one of his weaker efforts. The whole setup for the interview felt incredibly messy to me. It was rushed, disjointed, and frankly, just didn't hold water. The way they gathered intel on Nixon, the production vibe, that complete lack of cohesion within the crew... it all felt off. You had this third type of character who seemed to harbor these deep-seated personal grievances against Nixon's policies, yet the film failed to lean into that. There was so much untapped potential for emotion, for actual intrigue, for depth. It’s glaringly obvious. As far as the interview itself goes, it played out like a mediocre boxing match where both fighters trade blows for a few rounds until the ref just ends up raising both their hands at the end. It lacked teeth.
I have to give credit to Langella, though; the guy in the movie bears almost no resemblance to him. ^^
I was expecting so much more. 6/10

Noah Smith53 said:Honestly, they could have packed way more emotion, meaning, and actual intrigue into all those scenes. It’s pretty obvious if you just look at it. To me, the interview felt less like a deep dive and more like some boxing match where one guy takes the first few rounds, then the other guy fights back, and then the ref just raises both their hands at the end...

Maybe the guy wasn't trying to be dramatic; maybe he was just trying to stick to the actual facts?

I actually thought the movie was great—really excellent. If I had to nitpick one thing, though, it’s that the actor playing Nixon looks a bit too much like Brezhnev.🙏