I wasn't ready. Not at all.

Rating: 7/10 (15 November 2015)

I was not at all prepared for All the President's Men. I had picked it up from the library a few weeks earlier with the misguided assumption that I would have time to watch it in the next few days. A veritable onslaught of tests, assignments, and social events almost denied me the opportunity to see the film, but I managed to cobble a few hours together on a Friday night. By then, I was exhausted, settling in for what I hoped would be a passive two hours of fun.
Boy, was I wrong.
All the President's Men hit me harder than a fiery cannonball. As the film spiralled on, I realized (to a considerable amount of shock) that I actually needed to pay attention, that if I didn't keep track of all the names and titles as they flew in and out of my soggy cerebrum, the film would be little more than a waste of time. Pakula wasn't about to serve his film up on a silver platter.
All The President's Men depicts the single-handed crusade of two journalists at the Washington Post, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in unearthing the truth of the Watergate burglary. I'll warn you, it's riotously fast-paced, perhaps the most fast-paced film I have ever seen. If you so much as blink, you might miss something extremely important, and cease to understand subsequent events. The two reporters are unceasingly on the trail, piecing things together at amazing speed.
That, if anything, makes this film a good film: it forces you to engage your mind. Pakula assumes an impressive level of intelligence on the part of the audience (or at least some background knowledge) that many directors deny as even a possibility. But I personally believe that it was a bit too much for a first encounter with Watergate. The film was released in 1976, while the event happened in 1972, only four years before. Thus, the 1976 audience would remember the events, having lived through them, and most importantly, would recognize the names of the people involved. I, as a 90s kid, didn't really have this advantage, and floundered hopelessly as a result.
Despite this, the film does have a general accessibility to the average film-goer in terms of acting, cinematography, and dialogue. Redford and Hoffman are undeniably excellent as Woodward and Bernstein, bringing a violent energy to each of their characters in their unshakable pursuit of the truth. All their actions in the film are for one goal, and one goal only: to get the story, and to get it right. There is a small degree of unevenness in Woodward's character in that he shifts between passive and aggressive too often to be unnoticeable, but Bernstein's character is defined and executed excellently. Also, Jason Robards is perfect as the tough-talking, gruff American newspaperman.
The cinematography, while uneven, is often excellent. The scenes in the parking garage and the Washington Post headquarters are done very well, each conveying an entirely different atmosphere, and doing it well. I did notice some strange issues with focus, in that half of a frame would be in focus while the other half would not, which was very off-putting and strange.
The dialogue was gorgeous. Modern films aren't able to convey the inherent fallibility of language as a human tool, and always forget that humans are inconsistent in speech. In this film, the characters make mistakes all over the place with their dialogue, and actually say the word "um", which was definitely a pleasant surprise. The language gives you the feeling that you're listening to real people, not actors.
I give All the President's Men a 6/10 in absentia of actually having seen the film. I'll explain: I saw the film, but I had only the slightest idea of what was happening, and thus, haven't really seen the film. I had no idea that the film was going to end when it did, and when it did, I was more confused than I had ever been after watching a film. I'm almost certain that the film is good, but can't be sure. I guess I'll have to watch it again.