Somehow it seems thin...

Rating: 8/10 (28 July 2002)

What happened to the rest of the story? The film ends with vigorous denials from the White House that chief of staff Haldeman controlled a secret slush fund, Post editor Ben Bradlee saying he stands by the story, Woodstein learning they went adrift when they assumed CREEP Finance director testified to the Grand Jury about Haldeman's involvement (he had only told the pair he'd have no problem with them writing such a thing, cue Felix Unger here), Woodward telling Deep Throat they will resign if they got it wrong, Deep Throat telling him to get out his pad, the reporters typing away in the background while Nixon is sworn in on TV in the foreground, then a series of chattering newswires (dated before and after August 9, 1974, so pay attention) building to the climax of Nixon's forced resignation. All in about five minutes. The end.
So when did Woodward and Bernstein get back on track and nail the story for good? How did they salvage those Pulitzers from the mess they made? You can read the book if you must know, but don't look for answers in the movie. The producers were running out of time. The movie had already run 150 minutes and the story was barely out of 1972. Much more ground needed to be covered, so they threw together one of the most frustrating "let's-end-this-sucker-now" climaxes ever shot for such a critically-regarded film. It's frustrating, because there seems so much more story left wanting here.
What we do see is good, good enough to whet our appetite for more. The arc of the story is vigorously paced and well-detailed (much of the problem is they ran out of time filming lesser things like Bernstein's visit to the Florida DA's office) and overall offers one of the best depictions of the idealized journalistic lifestyle you'll ever see. Yes, there's too many talking heads, and phone calls, and fluorescent lighting, but that's what it was and it was a hell of a story. Its strong dramatic punch never feels forced or anything other than natural. Every performance seems special in some way, but there's no attention being called to the acting at all, or the sets, or the costumes or music. The quotes are the only thing that really stick with you, which tells you screenwriter William Goldman's approach was properly journalistic in approach as well as content. It's a terrific approach, and it works. But the structure of the story needed more work.
No question this was a tough film to make in 1975, with all the major Watergate figures still alive and hiring lawyers. But if I was Ben Bradlee, I'd send this one back for a rewrite. Not because it's not good, but because it could have been better.