Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

mckenziefriends-nv The film features footage from 500 hours of 8mm movies shot by Halderman, Erlichman, and Dwight Chapin, however none of the footage shows Charles Colson or John Dean. Did they sue their way out of this production? It seems odd that such major players in the White House with roles significant enough to be incarcerated for regarding participation in the Watergate affair are absent during every occasion these three individuals independently decided to shoot film. The only logical explanation is that they were intentionally omitted for some reason and the filmmakers should have included either in the film or in the closing credits what the reason was.

sddavis63 Robert Haldeman, John Ehrlichman and Dwight Chapin all worked as insiders in Richard Nixon's White House. They had one other thing in common: all three apparently liked to take home movies, and they took a lot of them during their time on Nixon's staff. Given the medium, this turns out to be basically what you would expect - not a documentary filled with new revelations about Watergate or Vietnam, but a personal look at the centre of power; a voyeuristic experience for the viewer more than anything.Nixon was a complicated man. A consummate politician whose public persona was nothing like the private man. But that's already well documented. This film merely reinforces what we basically already knew about him. Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Chapin are all spliced into this in excerpts from later interviews. The most interesting part of this is probably from those interviews when they discuss the fallout from Watergate, that eventually led to all three of them resigning from the White House and eventually serving time in prison. Otherwise, there's not much new information about anything to be found here, but it is a voyeur's delight. (7/10)

aemery123 I wasn't born in the 50's so, I haven't seen all this footage before. I also didn't study political science in university. This movie really appeals to laypersons, who don't know what else to watch. I liked it, maybe give it a try. I've seen images of Nixon being portrayed as a creep, but I didn't know why. Now I do. try and make a review and you will know. By submitting this review you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your review will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Revieview you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your review will n

J Balls I must say that I was very disappointed with the documentary. After watching the trailer, I was eager to watch what I thought was going to be a classic documentary that examined a "new" life of R. Nixon. Unfortunately for me (and most likely you) the trailer was the best part of the film and I found myself bored to death sitting through the full-length doc.Horrible directing as well. I'm not sure what the director was thinking. Was the movie suppose to be cheeky and cute? Was it suppose to show us a new way of looking at Nixon? Nothing was accomplished other than a loss of 86 minutes.I'm surprised CNN is showing this junk. P.S. This movie was supported TWICE on Kickstarter and yet the movie was completed both times the director asked for the funds. Seems like a cash grab to me.