The film by itself is not as good as people say is simply because the events depicted are important

Rating: 4/10 (6 October 2012)

I found it surprising how many reviewers here have based their vote on considerations that go beyond the film itself. We have the Republicans around who think that Nixon was treated unfairly by being forced to resign for Watergate, and that the attention the scandal and this film received are part of a left-wing bias in the American media. So they give it poor ratings. On the other side, you have those who think Watergate was an important part of American history, and that Bernstein and Woodward deserve the fame they got for their work. So they give the film high ratings. In my view, however, the film should be judged by itself, not by non-cinematic considerations of that sort.
Coming to that point, I believe that the film suffers from its pace, which is unbearably slow at some times and too fast at others. Much of the plot mostly depicts Redford and Hoffman interviewing people on the phone or in person, sometimes getting answers and sometimes not. While I, personally, do not expect a film to feature explosions and guns to be thrilling, I do believe that watching Robert Redford's telephone calls gets dull after the third or so time. Then, later on, when the investigations start to get traction, the pace becomes a bit too fast for the audience; names of people involved in various party or government institutions are flung around, making it hard to keep track of who is involved with whom in what manner. Towards the end, the film seems to surrender its difficult task of storytelling altogether, simply recounting the climax of the Watergate scandal by retelling it on a typewriter. That demonstrates, in my view, that the material makes for a good book, but is not really apt to be turned into a film.
As for the acting, Redford is doing an excellent job - he remains in character throughout the film, making you believe that this is how the real Woodward must have felt during the investigations. However, I feel that Hoffman remains rather clumsy, wooden, and awkward most of the time; he does not manage to involve the audience in the scenes in which he is a central figure.
In summary, while I acknowledge that this film has historical value for its close chronological link to Watergate itself (making, at the same time, the depiction of journalism and office work in the 1970s must be very realistic), I believe that much of the praise this film received is for the importance of the real-life events it depicts; its intrinsic cinematic quality is, in my view, rather mediocre.