Fan Review by Theresa, March 19, 2009

I have to admit that that title is a little too broad and that no movie can cover the 1960s as they truly happened, nor all of the different issues that shaped them. This rather colorful miniserie attempts in part I to give the civil rights struggle its due attention, and Charles S. Dutton (my favorite of a movie called Time To Kill) and Leonard Robberts are great in their roles of blacks struggling with anger and bitterness, but after part I of the movie, their struggle seems to take backseat to the students activism against Vietnam. Granted the war in Southeast Asia and the true motives of capitalists in Wall Street are important, but the story should not have suddenly shunned the civil rights struggle. That offended me greatly. It was as though the black families were just "not important" anymore. It was an unbalanced portrayal.

I didn't enjoy watching all of the antiwar movements, too much lingering on students who were only there because it was the hip thing to get involved in. The flower in the gun was based on a real photograph but why glorify a cliche? There was an opportunity for this movie to really discuss what the 60s was about, but instead relies heavily on cliched images. Not complaining about the music, since it was one of the strongest things about that time, from protest folk to psychedelic rock, the music was superbly used and seemed to do the talking that the film itself did not do. It's disappointing because the counter culture/flower children/Haight-Ashbury story was more than just kids wearing strange costumes and dancing in the streets. It was all about throwing the hypocritical values of their parents and their government back in their face, being defiant against phony "christian" values and the "do as I say, not as I do" attitude of the 1950s. No mention is made of the despair in young people which drove them to be this rebellious. Even though a commune is shown briefly, no mention is made of the kids' hatred of capitalist propaganda and how many hippies adopted communist beliefs. I had a professor in college who was an old hippie and he is still a communist today. Even though the radicals were portrayed (quite well by Sisto I must admit), they didn't really talk about Abbie Hoffman much. There were other topics, such as religious changes (the rise of Church of Satan and other religions, for example) and how music became very dark (the Doors, the Eagles, etc.) reflecting things in peoples' minds in those turbulent days.

Not to say that this movie didn't try to be sincere. I think it had sincere intentions, but somehow the images that everyone already have associated with that decade are here, and nothing new is really said. In fact, nothing much is said at all most of the time. I liked Charles Dutton and Jeremy Sisto most, though many have said his character was insincere. Still, he brought an energetic appeal to the radical. I have to say that the hippies are a disappointment and boring and many of the actors in this film were below average. I give 2 stars.

Back to THE '60s