Los 70

The major events and hit songs of the decade are viewed through the eyes of four protagonists who graduate from Kent State University in 1970. The four are played by Vinessa Shaw, Brad Rowe, Amy Smart and Guy Torry.

People look down on this television production from 2000 because the story threads that link the various events are brisk and lack depth; but if the writers offered more depth it would be a 4-5 hour movie. Besides, I felt like I knew the characters by the end; they're not one dimensional and are all likable in one way or another.

Sure, there are some dubious melodramatics and acting, but "The 70s" entertainingly accomplishes what it sets out to do - highlight the significant happenings of the decade, starting with the Kent State shootings of May 4th, 1970, and on to Watergate, feminism, disco, the Guyana cult tragedy and so on, all to a soundtrack of 70's radio hits.

On the female front, Shaw is intelligent and winsome whereas Smart is flighty, but alluring. They coulda done more with them, but they do enough. Rowe comes across as a low-budget Brad Pitt while Torry is a compelling choice to represent black culture, his wife too (Leslie Silva).

The film runs 2 hours, 50 minutes, and was shot in Southern California with historical footage from all over the USA.

GRADE: B-

I am not in the habit of nasty reviews. I understand that it is very easy for me to sit in the back row and criticize than it is to do any of this. I usually try to find that one gem or aspect that, I can praise. Sometimes there is an actor or a scene, or character or even a song who will rise above mediocrity and show me something. Unfortunately, I cannot find any gold nugget in this one.

Okay, first of all, the 70's are a tough decade to categorize. Many different things were happening in different places. To do an epic on the 60's or 40's or many other time periods is far easier. Suffice it to say this was an extremely ambitious and arduous task to say the least. Whether it could be done in a 4 hour period would a huge labor.

Having said all of the preceding, this mini series failed on almost every level. The plot was pretty lame. The writing was so bad that, it was down right funny. The characters were so shallow and one dimensional that I was laughing and groaning at times.

We could say that the acting was bad but, it would have taken an amazing cast of the best actors in the world to make this dog hunt. This cast just did not have the chops to pull this one out. Even so, the acting was absolutely, plastic and depth-less.

The only recommendation, I would make is for people with film ambitions, acting, writing or directing to watch this and take careful notes so that you know what not to do. This could be worth it just so you could avoid these mistakes.

For anyone else, I would not waste your time.

I'll be honest. I enjoyed this mini-series. Maybe because I didn't live through the real thing. I was born in the glorious eighties, so this may be the reason that I am the ONLY person who found this series 'watchable.'

I can't comment on the history too much, so that just leaves the acting, music, and writing. The acting was a little touchy but still good. Touchy because the four main characters are somewhat newcomers to acting, but they still did a nice job. Smart, Rowe, Torry, and Shaw worked well as a team and were good overall. Other supporting actors and characters were alright.

Hooray for the music! I love music from the sixties and seventies, so this worked out well. Nothing better than listening to disco for four hours. (What is the runtime?) Seriously, the mixture of some of the greatest songs were nicely put together.

The writing was okay and the story lines that followed the four college students were well thought out. Quite a few twists and turns for Smart's character but I could still handle it. Rowe's role with the Watergate scandal was a little hard to take. It briefly covered it but after a while into it, it became really dull. Torry's performance as Dexter was nothing great, nothing terrible. He buys a theatre, ends up in the hospital, and so on. There could have been a little more effort put into this character but no more screen time. I'm liking it, so don't bore me. And Shaw's Eileen was the best of the four. I liked the problems dealing with her parent's divorce, the lawsuit against what's-his-name, and her ups and downs with Byron.

Like I said, I can't comment too much on the era itself, but I will say that the settings and props were well put together. I love the wardrobe. Also, the added in little actions referring to the seventies was kind of funny. (streakers, masks of Nixon, reference to Mary Tyler Moore, and the list goes on)

After watching non-stop promotional ads on NBC for this mini-series, I looked forward to watching it. I didn't expect anything too big, since what the outcome of 'The '60s' was. But I was still happy and content with how it started and how it ended. (I definitely enjoyed this more than 'The '60s'.)

I certainly hope no one took this movie as history. Music and events were chronologically incorrect throughout the entire 4 hours. It seems that the picture was made entirely to sell advertising time to record companies to advertise their re-released music of the 70s as if you couldn't hear every one of these songs on any given "Classic Rock" station in any given city at any given time. Events and moods were captured well but not chronologically correct - for example: How could 'Whatever Gets you Though the Night' be playing during the 1972 Presidential campaign when the song wasn't released until 1974? How did they get a clip of Jack Benny on the Tonight Show they were watching at Christmas 1975 when Benny died in December of 1974? Why was there a streaker at the 1972 Presidential election party when the streaking fad took place in winter/spring 1974? It seems today, as far as TV writers are concerned, the 1970s were just one year and everything happened during it! I was there for the 1970s and I can assure you that 1971 was very different from 1978 but you'd never know it based on this pseudo-restrospective. Obviously the makers of this film were not as concerned about historical accuracy, as they were with portraying every event they could remember that occurred in the 1970s. It didn't matter when or where in the 1970s, just fit it in where you can, the order doesn't matter. If history were taught this way, we'd never know the truth about anything.

To describe this mini-series (The 70s)as a Pathetic attempt by NBC to boost ratings by target marketing this pathos-driven, banal drivel to the older Melrose Place/late baby-boomers crowd would be too kind. The acting is, well, ordinary at best. The chosen actors are laughably WAY too old to play college kids, they look exactly like they were pulled from the set of Ally Macbeal or Melrose place; their actual ages are a range of 25-32 which is not very convincing. The artful cinematography reminiscent of the dreamy-eyed Forest Gump is the best feature of the movie series. Finally, the sentimental baby-boomer oriented whining is annoying and the shameless Pathos runs amock here, A la "Saving Private Ryan", confounded by a trite and hackneyed series of 'themes' and life-lessons that only a 3yr old would miss, further burdened by a smattering of revisionist history (key your eye open and your history text nearby and watch for it)... Anyway, find something else to watch, ANY History channel show would be far, far more fullfilling.