Countdown to Looking Glass

I first saw this movie when I was in my late teens. Would love to see it again. At that time the Soviet Union was still the menacing enemy of the free world. We also were only a few years removed from the Iranian hostage taking at the US embassy in Tehran, and just months after the bombing of the US Marine Barracks in Beirut (carried out by Hezbollah who is supported by Iran as well as Syria) and some of us started to realize that we had a new enemy, Islamo-Fascists. Without giving away too many details, the movie would still play well today. Although this movie centers around a possible military conflict with the Soviets, most it is played out in the Persian Gulf, specifically the Strait of Hormuz. One can clearly replace the Soviets with the Iranians. If you watch this movie with that in mind you will not only be entertained, but you will feel as if you are watching events as they might just unfold in the years (or months) to come. The way the film is made, in docu-drama style, really makes it as if you are watching breaking events unfold on FOX/CNN or MSNBC. The late Scott Glenn is outstanding as is the rest of the cast. It may have been 20 years since I saw this movie, but it has always stayed fresh in my mind. You will definitely see how close to reality this movie may really be someday. Very well done.

There were Threads, Day After, By Dawn's Early Light, plus more but I say this movie was the most believable nuclear war starting theory ever made. Never a dull moment in the movie and good acting throughout. A must have and see. A very scary movie - haunted me for days thereafter.

Countdown to Looking Glass is a good speculative thriller examining the outbreak of World War III. Made during the Cold War, it is rife with the tension of the period. It also gives a haunting portrait of how the apocalypse could have happened.

Through a series of news reports, we see events spiral out of control following a financial collapse in South America. We see both the televised reports and the behind the scenes debates among the reporters and their producers. The film not only has a keen eye for political developments, but also a good sense of the role of media in shaping the world.

The film also wisely avoids showing the actual nuclear exchange. Rather than imitate The Day After, which had come out a year earlier, the film keeps its focus on the lead up to disaster, heightening the tension. It is a worthy entry in the early 80s end of the world genre.

Because of the inability of several South American countries to pay their debts the United States is plunged into an economic crisis which has far-reaching repercussions. Oman, for example, experiences a revolution and this results in a communist government which tilts the balance of power over to the Soviet Union and further escalates tension in the Middle East. Soon the United States and the Soviet Union become directly involved in a high-stakes military standoff which neither side seems to be able to resolve. Anyway, rather than disclose the rest of the story and risk spoiling the film for those who haven't seen it I will just say that for a "made-for-television" movie this was a pretty good political thriller. While I didn't particularly care for the ending I liked the performances of Scott Glenn (as "Michael Boyle") and Helen Shaver ("Dorian Waldorf"). I especially liked the scene involving the U.S.S. Nimitz when it reached the Gulf of Oman. Good tension. Be that as it may I think this is a movie that most viewers will probably enjoy and I rate it as above average.

Very uneven, but ultimately effective tale of the build up to a nuclear showdown between the US and USSR, told almost entirely by news reports, using real life commentators like Newt Gingrich, Eugene McCarthy and Eric Severied.

The problem is when the film 'breaks character' to get into the personal lives of Michael Murphy as a government official and Helen Shaver as a reporter. Not only do these (few) scenes feel clunky, melodramatic, and not well written, but they interrupt the whole style and flow of the film, without adding much.

Also, some of the 'news' interviews are frustratingly short – if you're going to go to the trouble to get such interesting real people to play along, why not give them time for more in depth thoughts?

Last, the 'War of the Worlds' type disclaimer at the top of the show isn't great, since it sort of gives away the ending.

But all that said, this is still mostly chilling, thought provoking stuff. Similar to, if not quite as effect as the great 'Special Bulletin'.