18½

The premise sounded interesting, "what if...??" Started slow, had some really unnecessary characters, probably just to fill time. I was annoyed and grossed out by the whole bossa nova - dinner scene & had to fast-forward through most of it. Blechhh! Surely the writer could have come up with a better way to insert these characters into the storyline? Ugh. So I got to the end, and I was even madder. I had to rewind because another reviewer mentioned the play/record button. I was then able to listen to the "recording" and ignore the fight scene, then the ending made slightly more sense, but still.....soooo many plot holes. I'm pi$$ed off and feel cheated out an ending that would have worked. The wonderbread arc was totally ridiculous. I really wish I hadn't seen this. Can't recommend it. Skip it. I promise, you're going to wish you had if you watch it anyway. Don't say you weren't warned.

My alphabetical run through Sky Movies is updated by the arrival of another new film with numbers in the title. This one is a . . . Comedy drama, I guess . . . With apparently many references to the Watergate scandal which, I have to admit, I only know the bare minimum about.

Connie (Willa Fitzgerald) is a white house stenographer who accidentally discovers a recording of Nixon (Bruce Campbell) and his aides listening to and discussing the missing 18 1/2 minutes from the Watergate tapes. She meets journalist Paul (John Magaro) and they decide to head to a waterfront motel complex to listen to the tape. Posing as husband and wife, the pair meet some interesting characters at the venue, and are forced to turn to another couple for help, when their reel to reel tape player doesn't work.

I like the pairing of Fitzgerald and Magaro and I thought they had good chemistry together. Whilst they're getting to play really broad characters, I liked Vondie Curtis-Hall and Catherine Curtin as the married couple that the central pair approach too. I also liked that there were a lot of subtler moments in the film, plot hidden in dialogue and there was a genuine surprise at the end that I didn't see coming.

I really didn't like the film though. I think movies can go awry for any number of reasons, budgetary, application, conflict on set. Here though, I feel like this is exactly the movie that Dan Mirvish wants it to be. It is quirky and off beat and they aren't things that I usually dislike, but it didn't feel in service of anything here. There are ideas in the second half of the film that take it too far outside of the realms of reality and that eccentric approach to the story feels forced. Quirk for quirks sake, rather than trying to find an original take.

Happy to read that several reviewers found more in this than I did, but for me it gave me a sword and I stuck it in, I'm not twisting it with relish though.

When a transcriber obtains the only copy of Nixon's infamous 18 and a half minute long tape. Enlisting the help of a reporter, Connie sets to work in trying to undercover the truth behind the Watergate scandal, but she soon finds several obstacles in her path....

Whilst 18 1/2 starts off quite serious and seems intent on following a narrative path that the audience expects it to follow, it quickly goes from being intriguing to being surreal and somewhat bizarre...

The main focus of the film lies with Connie and Paul and their desire to find a reel to reel tape player in order to be able to fully understand the corruption with Nixon and his government. Whilst this is running in the background, it seems to take a back seat to the weird array of characters that we are introduced to; they aren't there for any real purpose other than to confound and baffle...

The picture really becomes messy in its second half with its multiple reveals; which have to be seen to be believed; it's at this point that the picture goes from being real to being surreal. It becomes too goofy in its second half and ends up being impossible to take seriously. The two leads are OK, but don't seem to have much of a dynamic and they also have an awkward chemistry about them too.

I really tried getting my head round this film and tried to get into the mind-set of those that made it and despite my best efforts I simply couldn't. I presume it's supposed to be a light-hearted take on the events leading up to the Watergate scandal, but I'm not entirely convinced that this was the right material to be given goofball treatment too. It's a shame as it started so well and ended so badly.

The only other time I can remember a film beginning with such promise and ending so badly was From Dusk till Dawn, but at least that film had some decent acting talent.

The movie has a fascinating premise: a lowly Washington stenographer in the early 1970s comes across a tape of Richard Nixon and his henchmen listening to the missing 18 and a half minutes from the "Nixon Tapes." Problem is, the filmmaker does all he can to avoid telling the story. The movie is a strange period piece, a vehicle for showing off retro fashions and furnishings. Great attention to detail in those departments, but the story was utterly neglected. The actor playing Richard Nixon doesn't even sound like him.

It is in the heat of the Watergate scandal and everybody is commenting on the missing tape controversy. Connie (Willa Fitzgerald) is a lowly government stenographer. She had stolen a tape that she was transcribing. On the tape, it has the President discussing erasing the tape as well as other shocking revelations. She has recruited reporter Paul Marrow (John Magaro) to listen to the tape before returning it after the weekend.

This movie wants the audience to look at all the other guests and Jack with suspicion. It wants to be a mystery, but there is really only one solution that makes sense. I guess it could be all coincidences and that's not fun. It becomes a game of waiting until the movie does the reveal. At least, the reveal is fine, but the waiting is not.