1969

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.

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.

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.

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 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