१९६९

I admit that I rented this because of Miss Ryder's name on the cover. However, this isn't really a Winona-Ryder-movie, she is secondary to the plot. Kiefer Sutherland and Robert Downey Jr. play the main characters, two irresponsible kids at the end of the 1960s, trying to avoid getting drafted or growing up. However, it didn't really touch me. The anti-war message could have been stronger if the war had felt more present. As ususal for a movie about kids, their parents are portrayed as being clueless about how things have changed since they were young. Scott's father seem to be thinking 'Whatever happened to the 1950s?' all through the movie.

I graduated from high-school in 1968. Guys in the neighborhood, my friends, cousin, older brother, everybody it seemed, was being drafted. I joined the Army Reserve in 1969 to dodge the draft. (I wasn't college bound at the time.)

Most everyone I knew made it back okay or didn't go to Vietnam. No one really close to me died, but I knew some that did. Some who did go to Vietnam, came back a little screwed up, some a lot. Many laughed about killing civilians or atrocities against the enemy. It alway seemed like an exaggerated, overly macho, nervous king of laugh. But it was okay, it was 'pay-back' in their minds.

I was in basic training during the walk on the moon and Woodstock in 1969. I'm glad I didn't go. I wish that some of the guys I went through basic and advanced training had not gone. I met some really great guys there (I hope they're all okay.) I still can't understand why so many volunteered.

My father was a World War II veteran with a purple heart who fought in Europe. He didn't believe in the Vietnam war and he wasn't ashamed to say so (maybe because he was a father). I watched the death counts on the 6 o'clock news with him, through my junior and senior high school years. I knew it would be over soon and I wouldn't have to be involved, but it wasn't, and it was possible that I would be.

I listened to the A.M. radio stations each night before I went to bed listening again to the death counts, and to dedications from young girls to their boyfriends and young husbands. They always played 'Soldier Boy' and 'Mister Lonely' as they read the dedications. It made you feel sick.

I've yet to see any movie that really conveys the true feelings of that time, but I do see a lot of parallels to what is going on today in the Middle East today. A lot of young guys that are being convinced of the same concepts of 'my country, right or wrong', 'love it or leave it', and of course 'pay-back'.

This movie did try. At least it made me think about making a comment. It sends a good message, but lacks the true feelings of the times, i.e., total confusion and desperation.

This is a very strange movie but not in a very bad way.Some of the acting is poor and could have been much better.I liked most of the movie but the story is off the road and rather "drunk".1969 is a good movie to view by yourself.A lot of 80's films such as this one are corny but good at the same time.

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

The overall point of the film may be a little obvious but it appears the story may be semi-autobiographical. What saves this movie are the acting and the characters which never lapse into stereotypes. Kiefer Sutherland plays Scott, a very different character than many of his previous roles. Rather than playing the adolescent leader-rebel (as in "Stand by Me"), Sutherland takes the role of a somewhat soft-spoken intellectual hippie-type who is into literature and leaves but not into drugs. His best friend, Ralph, played by Robert Downey Jr., is exactly the opposite. Ralph likes women and psychedelic drugs but doesn't understand any of the other aspects of the hippie culture, which included reverence for certain high literature. He isn't sure who Camus is. For him, the drugs and staying out of Vietnam are all that matters. Downey's sister, Beth (Winnona Ryder), eventually becomes a significant part of the story as the film progresses.

The film doesn't have much of a coherent plot and may be described as a character study of its leads. The setting is a small town in Maryland where Scott's brother, Alden, is about to leave for Vietnam. He is one of the first from this nameless town to be drafted into the war and the locals, including his family, seem perplexed by the whole affair. In an uncomfortable scene, Alden tries to make amends with his younger brother Scott who says the war is "b.s." Their father (Bruce Dern) who feels strongly that his sons should fight as he did in World War II reprimands Scott for his disrespect. Luckily, Dern's performance is not over-the-top and it works. After a rather strange farewell, Ralph decides that neither himself nor his friend Scott should allow themselves to get drafted. Scott begins to explore the young peoples' counter-culture movement of the late 1960's while Ralph seems only interested in exploring the drugs. They attend college, mostly to avoid the draft, but Ralph lapses in his studies. During their first summer, they decide to go on a road trip.

A good movie, by no means a great one, but high marks for all the leads and supporting characters, particularly Bruce Dern as Scott's father and Mariette Hartley as the mother. It seems this movie was missing something that was present in the writer's brilliant play "On Golden Pond". I can't quite put my finger on it, but the film made its point all too soon. I think I wanted an additional profound revelation besides the idea that Vietnam was a bad war.