Watch The Missiles of October For Free

hyped garbage

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

This isn't going to be everybody's favorite movie. The production values don't shoot out the lights. All the sets are indoors. There's no motion to speak of. The whole shebang seems static and talky.Yet it's an important document and in some ways well done. If much of the dialog sounds stilted it's because it was taken from official sources. So we get a lot of formal speech and very little in the way of offhand nudges. But the acting, at least in the important roles, is really pretty good. DeVane as JFK, Martin Sheen as his brother Bobby, and Howard DaSilva as Krushchev are outstanding.Most impressive is the way this film takes us back to what now seems almost like a Golden Age, despite the missile crisis and the insanity of Mutual Assured Destruction.It was a time when a president would make certain that the meetings were attended by an old Cold Warrior, Dean Acheson, even though Acheson was presumed to represent a dated point of view and was only a private citizen at the time, because the president wanted to hear all points of view during brainstorming sessions.In discussing those planning sessions, Robert MacNamara describes President Kennedy leaning towards military action in order to save face, and one of the participants saying to him, "Mister President, you're wrong." ("That took guts," says MacNamara in Errol Morris's documentary, "The Fog of War.") I was in school at the time of these events and no one knew anything except what was released to the media. If we'd known how close we were to war I believe church attendance would have soared.Many incidents and coincidences came together to get the world out of that tight spot, chief among them the reluctance of both sides to engage in war. Both Krushchev and Kennedy had a pretty good idea of how that worked. JFK had written a book about it. More than that, imagine a president who is able to muse that he recently finished reading Barbara Tuchman's history of the accidental beginning of World War I, "The Guns of August". "If I could do it, I'd send a copy to every commanding officer aboard the blockading destroyers -- not that they'd read it." The resolution of the conflict, despite missteps and mistakes on both sides, hinged on a single event. Krushchev, depressed, wrote an ameliorative letter to Kennedy, saying that he understood Kennedy's position, and that he, Krushchev was willing to dismantle the Cuban missiles in return for a guarantee that the USA would neither launch nor aid any invasion of Cuba in the future. (Using anti-Castro Cubans, we had invaded the island at the Bay of Pigs, which was a miserable failure.) At last both sides seemed to have what they wanted. The USA was getting rid of the missile threat, and the USSR was getting a guarantee of Cuba's sovereignty.Alas, under political pressure from his "war camp" at home, Krushcheve wrote a second letter, much harder in tone, reneging on earlier proposals and adding demands which the USA could not grant. Two mutually conflicting proposals a day apart. What to do? What they did was follow Robert Kennedy's suggestion. They ignored the second letter and responded only to the first. More fumbles and confusion followed but the crisis was eventually resolved with both sides compromising, but not in ways that jeopardized their own defenses.The crisis required -- and got -- deft handling at the top and cautious but effective diplomacy. That's why I used the expression "Golden Age" before.As drama, this isn't much. No villains, no fist fights, and not a gun in sight. Yet for its educational value alone, in our somewhat history-shy culture, it ought to be seen by everyone, especially now.

All things considered, "The Missiles of October" is a pretty good (if abbreviated) account of the Cuban Missle Crisis, but I can't agree with those who conclude that it was a perfect production or that William Devane did a fantastic job portraying JFK. Frankly, he was much closer to RFK than JFK in appearance and demeanor. Kennedy was very handsome and charismatic, whereas Devane is simply not that attractive. He had buck teeth, a hooked nose, and his haircut wasn't quite right. He didn't sound much like Kennedy, either. His mannerisms, although obviously studied (particularly the way he smoked a cigar) simply didn't evoke Kennedy for me. Nonetheless, he did a credible job at a demanding task and his performance definitely improved as the show built to its inevitable climax. I found him least effective portraying Kennedy on the stump and most effective when he was extremely worried that the effects of blockading Cuba might spin out of control and touch off catastrophic warfare. At one point, he was practically curling up into himself, nearly in tears right in front of his advisers while his brother looked on, obviously very concerned that he was cracking under the strain. I doubt it really happened in quite that way, but it was a very dramatic moment and one of Martin Sheen's better scenes, too. In general, however, I didn't care for Sheen's portrayal of RFK. I found him too intense and nasal and he seemed to bully those who disagreed with his take on events. Some of the other actors were more notable in their supporting roles. Howard Da Silva as Russian Premier Nikita Khrushchev was excellent. John Dehner, in a smaller part as a worldliwise former Secretary of State Dean Acheson, did a very competent job, as well. Harris Yulin as KGB agent Alexander Fomin was convincing, and so was Paul Lambert as John Scalia, the ABC correspondent he contacted. I also appreciated the portrayal of Russian Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin by Albert Paulsen. Kenneth Tobey as Admiral Anderson, Chief of Naval Operations in charge of the blockade, was convincing as the military man trying to follow difficult orders while tolerating the slights of less experienced superiors, and Ralph Bellamy's portrayal of UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson was very good, in my opinion. It is not generally remembered how important Stevenson was in turning world opinion sharply in our favor.What I found most interesting was the way the more dovish elements counseling Kennedy overruled the hawkish advisers, who called for bombing of the missile sites followed by an invasion of Cuba. The consensus settled on the blockade, instead, which the Kennedy brothers preferred. Far from proving more prudent and measured, however, it came very close to touching off the war they hoped to prevent. In fact, it looked as if the bombing and invasion might become necessary after all. This wasn't so well known when the events actually transpired, where it appeared that Kennedy had stepped up to the plate by calling for the naval quarantine of Cuba, Stevenson embarrassed the Russians at the UN by showing pictures of US overflights of the island, Khrushchev quickly backed down, and order was restored. As this show depicts, matters weren't resolved behind the scenes quite so easily. We really did come uncomfortably close to a nuclear war, despite the efforts of many cooler heads attempting to avoid it.This was a very good TV movie, regardless of its limitations, and it is very instructive about that historic time. For those interested in a more in-depth analysis, I recommend reading "The Crisis Years," by Michael Beschloss. It's a big book, but well worth the investment in time and effort.

A must-see depiction of the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. Focusing mostly on the Kennedy administration, this made-for-TV movie captures all the tension and emotion occurring inside the White House. It gives a real insider's view of how the American government operates. It also takes you inside the Kremlin giving you a glimpse how both sides dealt with the crisis. William Devane and Martin Sheen give excellent performances as Jack and Bobby Kennedy. The entire cast is top-notch. Don't bother with Thirteen Days, it pales by comparison. This is the real deal.

Some have berated the "The Missiles of October" for being over-long. Nonsense! (One genius who complained did, however, like the performance of "Marin Short". Sounds like a 12 year-old. Hey, maybe he is!) It would have been over-long if it were a boring story with boring performances. But "The Missiles of October" is neither. The story is, of course, riveting, whether you were around during the early sixties or not. And the performances - the guy who cast the three main characters, JFK (William Devane), RFK (Martin Sheen) and Khrushchev (Howard Da Silva), should have got an Emmy. Martin Sheen may have over-done Bobby Kennedy a bit, but it should be noted, that RFK's "Kennedy accent" was much thicker than JFK's, almost to the point of self-caricature.Nor is the film "dated," as another reviewer would have it. The TV claustrophobic atmosphere is in perfect keeping with the tight, closed, suffocating tension which actually existed in the real situation. The crisis did not occur out of doors, or in halls - it occurred in a few rooms. "The Missiles of October" possesses the hallmark of classic drama: though you may know how it ends, you want to watch it again and again.