Q: Is there any other time period that has been so exhaustively covered by television (or the media in general) as the 1960s? No. And do we really need yet another trip through that turbulent time? Not really. But if we must have one, does it have to be as shallow as "The '60s"?

I like to think that co-writers Bill Couturie and Robert Greenfield had more in mind for this two-part miniseries than what ultimately resulted, especially given Couturie's involvement in the superb HBO movie "Dear America: Letters Home From Vietnam" which utilized little original music and no original footage, letting the sights and sounds of the time speak for themselves. This presentation intercuts file footage with the dramatic production, but it doesn't do anyone any favours by trying to do too much in too little time; like so many of its ilk, it's seen from the point of view of one family. But the children of the family seem to be involved tangentially with almost every major event of the '60s (it's amazing that one of them doesn't go to the Rolling Stones gig at Altamont), making it seem less like a period drama and more like a Cliff Notes version of the decade.

The makers rush through it so much that there's little or no time to give the characters any character, with the stick figures called our protagonists off screen for ages at a time - the children's father is especially cliched - and then when they're back on BLAMMO! it's something else. Garry Trudeau could teach the filmmakers a thing or two about doing this kind of thing properly. In fairness, Jerry O'Connell, Jordana Brewster, Jeremy Sisto, Julia Stiles and Charles S. Dutton give their material the old college try, but they're wasted (especially the latter two); it's undeniably good to see David Alan Grier in a rare straight role as activist Fred Hampton, and Rosanna Arquette (in an uncredited cameo in part 2) is always welcome.

What isn't welcome is how "The '60s" drowns the soundtrack with so many period songs that it ultimately reduces its already minimal effect (and this may well be the only time an American TV presentation about post-60s America never mentions the British Invasion - no Beatles, no Rolling Stones... then again, there's only so much tunes you can shoehorn into a soundtrack album, right?). Capping its surface-skimming approach to both the time and the plot with an almost out-of-place happy ending, "American Dreams" and "The Wonder Years" did it all much, much better. Nothing to see here you can't see elsewhere, people... except for Julia Stiles doing the twist, that is.
A: negative
Q: Saw it first in 1975 on some German TV channel and was hooked immediately, afterwards I saw this movie around 12 times in cinemas and nowadays I have a videotape which I watch at least once a year - this movie is excellent in every aspect (direction, acting, cut, musical score...). The sets are outstanding and very impressive, the idea of a devastating world war starting in the late thirties seems like prophecy for a 1936 film, the dictator of "Everytown" is pure Mussolini and Raymond Massey is just charming, believable and ideally cast as "the hero". The positive tone towards technology and progress is quite refreshing by todays usually pessimistic standards - especially the finishing scene which always brings a tear or two to my eyes, even after watching the film so many times.

This movie is good on TV but it was made for the big screen, so if you have an opportunity to see it in some cinema. please do, it's overwhelming.
A: positive
Q: Yikes did this movie blow. The characters were weak, the plot weaker. I figured this couldn't be too bad because it has Christoper Walken, oops. He must have done this because he was bored and needed the money. The characters were supposed to be Irish but noone had an Irish accent. I am desperately trying to find something nice about this, I can't except Walken did a fine job with a wooden character. Find something to read, or watch discovery, don't ever see this movie.
A: negative
Q: All of the people reviewing this film, and probably many professional film reviewers, just don't get it. This film was made with matting sequences and art techniques quite like the works of the great Czech filmmaker, Karel Zeman. If you want to know what I'm talking about, I suggest you get any of Zeman's films, such as The Fabulous World of Jules Verne, Baron Munchausen, Journey to the Beginning of Time, or On The Comet. If you are unable to locate a film, then read the reviews in AMG. They will explain the processes used. If one were to look at Zeman's work and try to compare it to any of the other sci/fi fantasy films of the time, viewers probably wouldn't have gotten it then either. It is unfair to compare either of these filmmakers' styles to the standard technologies of the day, because both Zemen and Hines "do not compute". They have a style that is unique to them and should be judged for their creativity only. If you look at this film from a perspective where you KNOW that he intentionally tried to create a pastiche collage of mattes mixed with live action, you could easily come to the conclusion that he did a masterful job. It isn't easy making a bunch of computer cutouts flow. I thought that the creatures were also quite good, also considering how they were made. Hines took a great gamble, and I think his film will not be fairly judged for years to come. Someone promoting the film should have tipped the audience off as to what they would be seeing, rather than let them blindly go into the theater expecting the usual CG work. Regarding the actors, I think Hines also took a page from Zemen's book, in that many of Zemen's actors were somewhat expressionless at first, but became much more engaging as the film and action went on. It is totally refreshing to me to have this movie in my library. I will watch it for years to come, all three great hours of it.
A: positive