What I am about to say may sound a little mean. However, until recently I never took Frank Langella all that seriously as an actor. With film credits like "And God Created Woman" (1988), "Masters of the Universe" and "The 12 Chairs", I hadn't seen very much from him that was outstanding in any way. However, here in "Frost/Nixon" he demonstrates that my preconceptions was definitely wrong--he is a darn fine actor. His performance as Nixon was wonderful--especially when it COULD have come off as a parody--like Rich Little doing a Nixon impersonation. But, he was able to capture the man very well--and, provide a bit of insight into a very enigmatic man.
As for Michael Sheen, who co-starred and played David Frost, he was excellent as well--but he did not dominate the movie like Langella and really couldn't due to his character. Making Frost any different would have been unrealistic and the viewer is naturally drawn more to the Nixon character--even if they dislike him.
As for the movie, it's a film that is probably going to appeal to you more if you know a lot about the Watergate affair. This means that younger folks who didn't live through and remember the 1970s will get less out of it unless they know their history well. As for me, I'm a retired history teacher, so even if I was only a kid when Nixon resigned, I understand what had occurred and the figures involved. So, when names of the various people involved are mentioned or what exactly Nixon's involvement was in the cover-up are discussed, it would sure help to know the basics. If you are fuzzy on this, reading through Wikipedia or another website wouldn't hurt.
Looking at the film's box office receipts, I could assume that because Watergate is a rather distant memory is why the film made so little money. After all, the acting and writing certainly were not at issue--they were top-notch. And, I must also admit, the film was quite cerebral and there aren't a lot of things to appeal to teens or someone who likes explosions or raunchy comedies (you do get to see a gratuitous butt near the end, but this isn't enough to appeal to this crowd). An amazingly good film.
As for Michael Sheen, who co-starred and played David Frost, he was excellent as well--but he did not dominate the movie like Langella and really couldn't due to his character. Making Frost any different would have been unrealistic and the viewer is naturally drawn more to the Nixon character--even if they dislike him.
As for the movie, it's a film that is probably going to appeal to you more if you know a lot about the Watergate affair. This means that younger folks who didn't live through and remember the 1970s will get less out of it unless they know their history well. As for me, I'm a retired history teacher, so even if I was only a kid when Nixon resigned, I understand what had occurred and the figures involved. So, when names of the various people involved are mentioned or what exactly Nixon's involvement was in the cover-up are discussed, it would sure help to know the basics. If you are fuzzy on this, reading through Wikipedia or another website wouldn't hurt.
Looking at the film's box office receipts, I could assume that because Watergate is a rather distant memory is why the film made so little money. After all, the acting and writing certainly were not at issue--they were top-notch. And, I must also admit, the film was quite cerebral and there aren't a lot of things to appeal to teens or someone who likes explosions or raunchy comedies (you do get to see a gratuitous butt near the end, but this isn't enough to appeal to this crowd). An amazingly good film.