Redford began asking about the Watergate break-in while promoting The Candidate and then read Woodward and Bernstein's Watergate stories in The Washington Post while waiting to start filming The Way We Were. Redford first spoke with Woodward in November 1972 after the mistake involving Hugh Sloan.
All the President’s Men
(1976)4
" At times it looked like it might cost them their jobs, their reputations, and maybe even their lives."
| Country | |
| Spoken Language | english, spanish |
| Runtime | 2 hr 18 min |
| Budget | $8 500 000 |
| Premiere: World | $70 603 656 April 9, 1976 |
| USA | $70 600 000 |
| Other countries | $3656 |
| Box Office – Budget | $62 103 656 |
| Premiere: USA | $70 600 000 April 4, 1976 |
| rollout | 999 days |
| Digital: World | August 15, 2008 |
| Parental Advisory | Profanity |
| |
| Production Companies | |
| Also Known As | Todos los hombres del presidente United States |
Description
"The Washington Post" reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncover the details of the Watergate scandal that leads to President Richard Nixon’s resignation.Сast and Crew
Director
Camera
Writer
Videos Stills Posters Filming Screenshots Covers
Overview
All the President's Men is a non-fiction book written by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. It was published in 1974 and details the investigative reporting by the two journalists from The Washington Post that uncovered the Watergate scandal, which eventually led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.Authors
- Carl Bernstein: An American investigative journalist and author, Bernstein is known for his work on the Watergate scandal alongside Woodward.
- Bob Woodward: An American investigative journalist and author, Woodward has worked for The Washington Post since 1971 and is renowned for his reporting on the Watergate scandal.
Content and Themes
The book provides a detailed account of the reporters' investigation, including their interactions with sources, the challenges they faced, and the impact of their findings. It highlights themes of journalistic integrity, the importance of a free press, and the power of investigative journalism in holding those in power accountable.Film Adaptation
The film adaptation of All the President's Men is considered to be highly faithful to the book. It captures the essence of the investigative process and the tension of the unfolding scandal. The screenplay, written by William Goldman, closely follows the narrative laid out by Bernstein and Woodward, ensuring that the film remains true to the source material.Overview of the Watergate Scandal
The film "All the President's Men" is based on the true story of the Watergate scandal, a major political scandal in the United States during the early 1970s. The scandal began with a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C., on June 17, 1972. The subsequent investigation revealed a series of abuses of power by members of the Nixon administration, ultimately leading to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.Key Figures in the Investigation
- Carl Bernstein - An investigative journalist for The Washington Post who, along with Bob Woodward, played a crucial role in uncovering the details of the Watergate scandal.
- Bob Woodward - Another key journalist from The Washington Post who worked with Carl Bernstein to investigate the scandal. Their reporting was instrumental in bringing the truth to light.
- Deep Throat - The pseudonym for the secret informant who provided crucial information to Woodward and Bernstein. In 2005, it was revealed that Deep Throat was Mark Felt, the Associate Director of the FBI at the time.
Impact of the Scandal
The Watergate scandal had a profound impact on American politics, leading to increased skepticism of government officials and greater transparency in political processes. It also resulted in the indictment of several Nixon administration officials and the eventual resignation of President Nixon on August 8, 1974.Accuracy of the Film
The film "All the President's Men" is widely regarded as a highly accurate portrayal of the events surrounding the Watergate scandal. It closely follows the book of the same name written by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, which details their investigative work. The film captures the tension and complexity of the investigation, as well as the dedication of the journalists involved.What is “All the President's Men” about?
It’s a dramatic reconstruction of the Watergate investigation: Washington Post reporters verify leads, cultivate sources, and connect a break-in at the Democrats’ headquarters to a broader political operation.
Is it a biopic or a dramatized interpretation?
It’s grounded in real events and reporting (and a book), but it’s presented as a drama: events are selected, timelines are compressed, and the focus is on the investigation process.
What is the screenplay based on?
The screenplay was written by Уильям Голдман and is based on a book-reporting account tied to the work of Боба Вудворда and Карла Бернстина.
Who directed it, and what’s the style like?
Directed by Алан Дж. Пакула. The style is deliberately journalistic: newsroom work, calls, documents, and source-handling drive the tension rather than action set pieces.
Why is it considered a landmark journalism film?
It portrays investigation as craft: verification, careful wording, legal exposure, editorial pressure, and the need to prove—not assume. It’s often treated as a gold standard for realistic reporting on screen.
Is the film more about politics or about the press?
The politics provide the stakes, but the movie’s main focus is the mechanics of reporting: how a story gets published, how trust with sources is built, and how editors make calls under the risk of error.
How tense is it if there’s not much “action”?
The tension comes from incremental connections, a sense of surveillance, and the requirement to verify every claim. The pace is measured, but structurally it plays like a thriller about information and the cost of getting it wrong.
Do you need prior knowledge of Watergate?
Not necessarily. The film stands on its own, but basic context about elections, the presidency, and the press helps you track names and institutions faster.
Does it deal with sources and anonymity?
Yes—one of its central threads is source protection, separating verified facts from rumor, and the newsroom’s demand for independent confirmation before printing serious allegations.
Why does it feel so “documentary-like”?
It’s achieved through dense newsroom detail, restrained staging, procedural focus (calls, notes, documents), and minimal melodrama—prioritizing day-to-day plausibility.
What themes still feel relevant today?
Information verification, pressure from power, source safety, legal risk, the speed-vs-accuracy tradeoff, and broader questions of media trust and editorial responsibility.
What might feel challenging for modern viewers?
There are many names, titles, and institutions; scenes rely on conversations and paperwork; the pacing is intentionally procedural. It rewards focus as the chain of facts clicks into place.
Does it feel conclusive or intentionally unfinished?
It’s framed as a phase of the investigation rather than the entire aftermath. The ending emphasizes ongoing reporting and that major conclusions emerge gradually through publication and subsequent events.
Is it a good pick for political-thriller fans?
Yes, but it’s a “quiet” thriller: suspense comes from information, meetings, calls, and verification rather than chases. If you like stories about power, facts, and exposure risk, it’s a strong match.
What makes it valuable as historical cinema?
It captures the period’s atmosphere and shows how institutions—newsroom, lawyers, sources, officials—interact around truth and power. It’s not just recap; it shows how history gets made through documents, words, and accountability.
Production
Sign up and you will see here
friends impressions of the movie.
Friends comments and ratings
A rather detailed, monotonous and sometimes boring journalistic investigation, which is saved by the good performance of the strong duo of Hoffman and Redford.
A tedious and meticulous re-enactment of the investigation into the Watergate scandal with all the telephone conversations, arguments about how to write an article, trips to the library, etc. etc. This is all incredibly important for the people of America and also boring for me.
Complex politics. The acting ensemble is excellent and it is fascinating to watch the actors play, but due to the lack of understanding of the topic, it is quite difficult to understand anything. The film is well made and of high quality. But he throws in so many different names that you get lost in the narrative (hello Deep Sleep).
A good thriller in the form of investigative journalism. But he is very overloaded with the names on the screen. An unprepared viewer may lose the thread of the story already in the middle. As a rule, this is a problem with many films of this genre.
Add a short review
280 characters