I saw Frost/Nixon yesterday...

[BroadwayBoy2]

Posted: 12/13/08 at 10:57am

It will deff be a front runner for the Oscars this year. I think Peter Morgan is one gifted man, not everyone has the ability to transfer from playwright to screenplay and the other way around. I am a BIG fan of The Queen, and I will be seeing Frost/Nixon on stage in Boston next month.
Frank Langella gives a fantastic performance but I dont see why Michael Sheen dosen't get credit for a larger role than Langella.
Overall I enjoyed it, but I think I enjoyed The Queen a tad more.

[romantico]

Posted: 12/13/08 at 11:16am

Hey thanks. I really want to see this film. Is it slow? When I heard they were doing a film version that was my first concern that it would drag. I LOVED the Queen so I am really excited about seeing this film.Thanks for the review!

[BroadwayBoy2]

Posted: 12/13/08 at 2:04pm

No it is not slow.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/13/08 at 3:05pm

Not slow, but not entirely cinematic. The film uses plenty of filmic techniques, including archival footage, but it's still about what it was about on stage: two men in two chairs talking. I admired it, as I did the play, but it's built around a couple of thin suspense premises -- will interviewing Nixon revive Frost's career, and how much regret did Nixon voice? The answer to both questions is known, and in one case, still aounts to a who cares? And the Frost part of the equation seems oddly more limited on film. But there are wonderful supporting performances by Bacon and espeically the always underrated Rockwell (anyone else think he was terrific in JOSUAH -- the Upper West Side verson of THE BAD SEED?)

[1937]

Posted: 12/13/08 at 3:32pm

Joshua was great, as was Sam Rockwell in it.
Updated On: 12/13/08 at 03:32 PM

[sabrelady]

Posted: 12/13/08 at 7:03pm

I thought Howard did a good job of opening it up, using other locations, adding the little feminine roles like Pat and Sawyer.

Because so much of it is TV oriented, the cinematic benefits of close up work were really beneficial. To me, that one scene in the last interview, w the close up on Langellas face, showing the thought process- that was the Oscar nom lock.
My only cavet is that Micheal Sheen is much better looking than Frost making him seem a bit more hero like. Still w make up and lighting there were one or two moments when he seemed a not exact but a good reference to Frost.
Basically, I really liked it.
Updated On: 12/14/08 at 07:03 PM

[Chrysanthemum62001]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 2:30am

I can't wait to see this. I must admit I'm curious to see how it's gonna compare to the play, which in my opinion was beyond brilliant. Michael Sheen is certainly one of my favorite actors.

[Q]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 3:36am

The opinion rendered by our theater-going companion after seeing the play remains my favorite review of that piece:

"Boy, they really captured the tedium of the original interviews."

That being said, I also experienced one of the greatest theatrical moments ever due to Mr. Langella - and the aforementioned tedium.

After being reduced to counting ceiling tiles, about ten minutes before the big 'ta da' moment of the piece, Frank began to 'reel us in', as it were. By the time we got to Nixon's 'moment', I was fully re-engaged. This was due ENTIRELY to Langella's gifts.

I'll be curious to see how it translates to film.

And also curious to see how they handle the fact that he looked almost nothing like Nixon. I assume film magic will play a part, but I still am curious.

[CyCoSpAz2]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 4:29am

I never saw the show on stage, but I found the movie to be compelling and my attention never strayed for one moment... and I get bored very easily

[nmartin]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 6:46am

I never go to the movies, but I will go see this. I'm old enough to have seen the broadcast interviews. They were fascinating and am hoping the movie will be also. I can't stress enough to the younger posters that those interviews were one damn big deal at the time.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 6:24pm

Q, there is a little bit of discreet prosthetic work, w the jowls and eyebrows but mostly- it's the voice. Not an impersonation but w resonating echos.

I also havn't commented on the supporting character, Platt and Bacon were terrific, Rockwell's role is obviously reduced ( duh! you don't need a voice over narration!) but he also was good.
In fact during the "slower" bits it's Platt & Rockwell whose intensity carries the film.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 9:17pm

I didn't like Howard's choice of trying to make it look like a documentary. The story would have stood on its own without the cut-away "interviews" with the supporting cast.

[violet72]

Posted: 12/15/08 at 8:22am

I saw this Saturday and really liked it. I hadn't seen the play. I thought the last interview was electric. Frank Langella and Michael Sheen were great. The supporting actors were also very good. I didn't think it was slow

[sabrelady]

Posted: 12/15/08 at 10:59pm

Well, the scene w the piano playing seemed overlong/slow to me.

But not so much otherwise.