It does not live up to its hype

Rating: 4/10 (10 June 2005)

I had heard much about this film over the years so I was looking forward to seeing it when I purchased the DVD. It does not live up to its hype. For one, it is not all that funny. Yes, there are some absurd things that happen and yes, there are some characters who are somewhat funny, sometimes, but that's it.
Although much of the acting was credible, the characters were neither funny nor satirical. Kubrick simply did not understand how people in high power act and how decisions at that level are made. He didn't understand the dynamics of the cold war. Most of all, he didn't understand satire. Read the book Catch-22, if you don't believe me (I know there is a film, but I haven't seen it so I can't recommend it). The author based most of his satire on Army bureaucracy of which he must have been acquainted. He knew the things about which he wrote and he also understood them so he could show them in a truly satirical light. The essence of satire is that it provides insight into what is currently happening or what is likely to happen. Kubrick based this film, not on what he knew, but on what he felt might be funny based on the bits he had researched and that is why the few bits of satire and comedy in the film come off as being remote.
The best parts of the film are those that take place in Kong's bomber. This is, in part, because the bomber and its crew look very real and in part because of the character of Major Kong. Silm Pickens did a brilliant job playing Major Kong. The character was not only plausible, but the few comedic situations involving his bomber arose from his character and his interaction with events and other characters. He was at once a professional pilot and a down-on-the farm (or ranch) human being. His reaction to the contents of the survival pack, for example, fit the character: he methodically listed the contents, as any professional would, then comments that they would make for a nice night out in Vegas (actually, in the original cut, he said 'Dallas', but that was changed after Kennedy's assassination, according to the short documentary DVD extra about how the film was made). It is not at all surprising or shocking or implausible that Major Kong would, inadvertently, end up riding the bomb as it fell to its destination. It's an evocative image he presents: that of a cowboy, riding a bronco - one final, wild ride.
What's more, the scenes in the bomber were filled with genuine tension. Was the bomber going to be hit by the Russian missile? Was it going to crash because of the damage the missile had caused? Was something going to stop it before it dropped a bomb? Were the bomb doors going to open? I was very much caught up in the action on the bomber. If the rest of the film had been this way, it would have been a great one.
The scenes outside the bomber just don't follow through, though. They aren't very funny and they aren't very satirical. It is, at most, a very mild satire. In particular, the character of Dr Strangelove falls flat. I don't know why the film is named after this character, except that he has a strange name. He is just a stereotypical German. He didn't send out the bombers and he didn't call them back. The only thing he does is to confirm that the Russians could make a doomsday weapon, and any character could have done that. He certainly does not turn his obvious intelligence to trying to figure out how to stop Kong's bomber. The character isn't funny or sinister: he comes off as being pathetic and irritating, particularly when he can't control his hand.
The film just doesn't catch my imagination and I don't know why so many people think highly of it. It is probably that people expect that they will like it: it is one of those films that is probably famous for being famous. I wish it had lived up to its hype, but there we have it.