1969

Granted there wasn't much of a plot to 1969 and the acting was fair, but nevertheless I thought the film did accomplish something important. It made you realize that this kind of "drama" - coping with the aftermath of a Vietnam KIA - played out in tens-of-thousands of homes throughout the country during the '60s and '70s. The sum of all that pain and anguish makes me cringe. I served in South Vietnam from the summer of '68 to the summer of '69 in the USMC and I am glad to see this kind of message portrayed in a movie. It keeps alive the suffering endured by family and friends from that time. Maybe that sounds morbid but I think it's important for the here and now to acknowledge and remember that suffering. We can use it to give us perspective on how fortunate we are to be able to flourish and live to a ripe old age. For me of course it has special meaning. I could have ended my life at 19 and would have missed so much.

But that's what happened to so many. A horrible shame.

As the child of a hippie, I can fully "get" this film. Downey is brilliant as Raplh, the drug taking friend of Scott (Sutherland), I guess life CAN imitate art. Scott's overbearing father is played equally well by veteran actor Bruce Dern. And the girl who wants to save the world is played nicely by Ryder. However, the movie is truly fueled by Sutherlands performance. His portrayal of a borderline hippie comming of age is heart warming and endearing. I don't think there is another actor who could have done this role. The fims content is heavy and the acting is really good, but it is Sutherland performance that makes this fim so good. Not to mention a kick-ass soundtrack featuring bands like Cream, Canned Heat, CSNY, and of course, the king, Jimi Hendrix. I truly recommend this movie to anyone who is interested in a good tale about growing up hard.

I give this one ****!

I only watched 1969 late night one night because the title indicated to me that it might be a film dealing with the issues of the time in the year with sincerity or promise, or even as a documentary. I didn't know how the film would go after the first couple of scenes I saw, but Bruce Dern seemed formidable enough to keep a watch. When the credits started to roll though I thought to myself, "what a cliché ridden disaster this became, why did I stick with it?"

I guess I stayed tuned because the actors seemed promising enough- Dern in a supporting role as a hard-nosed father, his son in the lead played by Kiefer Sutherland, his cocky best friend played by Robert Downey Jr., and his beautiful sister played by Winona Ryder. Sutherland's character, Scott, decides he doesn't want to go to Vietnam like his brother, so he enlists into college with Downey's character, Ralph, and the two begin to discover what they've been sheltered from- free-love, drugs, and soon enough sex.

Some of these early scenes seemed to look kind of silly, but I enjoyed the (partly obvious) soundtrack and thought if I stayed with picture (instead of flipping to a different, better movie) it might pay off in the second or third act. I got proved wrong, as line after line and moment after moment seemed to lower my expectations, and the characters headed towards an last scene that made me want to puke in my lap.

The probable cause of the pits in this movie come from writer/director Ernest Thompson. I don't know who he is really, and I haven't seen any of his other efforts as a filmmaker, but it looked as though he was either tapping into his own by-the-numbers first account of the turmoil that went with coming of age in that year, or was tapping into the memories of other baby boomer yuppies who still try to think back to when they wanted freedom before gluing themselves into the "me" generation.

The players tried to do what they could, a couple of scenes had some laughs, and I grinned at a line or two from Downey Jr. Yet I couldn't get over how much the movie hit its well intentioned points home with near propagandizing techniques. To sum it up, this is absolutely the soapy, "made-for-television" version of what life was like in 1969. If you want the truer, earthy version(s) see Woodstock or Easy Rider - those two may be folklore at this point for that generation, but at least they work as being entertaining thirty-four years later to the following generation. Grade: D

Anybody who lived in the 60s, studied the 60s, or even heard about the 60s, knows that this movie reflects what the 60s were like about as accurately as the Barney movie shows us what dinosaurs were like. The script does all it can to tug at our emotions and make us feel all gushy about a better time while supplying no real plot and no interesting characters. Big loser of a movie. If you want to see a good movie about the 60s that also stars Kiefer Sutherland check out the great film Flashback.

i can see why some people dislike this movie, but i enjoyed it.

good stuff: music (CSNY, Canned Heat, Creedence), costumes, subject, issues dealt with, cast! young Winona, Keifer & Robert Downey Jr., plus the van and cars, conflict btwn generations

bad stuff: melodramatic, simplistic, like a TV movie or Walt Disney.

there was a 1999 'mini-series' (2-part) on cbs i think that was a lot like this. ie; it's more a TV movie than an Easy Rider or Platoon. If you go in with the 'TV' mindset i'm sure you'll enjoy it if you like this subject and/or era -- the Vietnam War and its effects on American families.

i only knew of this era thru documentaries and books, but living in America in 2003, there are real war-tearing familial similarities that are only likely to get more exaggerated. seeing a portrayal, even a 'TV movie' version, just helps a little bit.