Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Supelice Dreadfully Boring

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

elgrandTA82 I remember when this movie first came on back in 1999 and I was 16 and all excited because I had heard so many stories about the 60's from my parents, who are both Puerto Rican and came of age in 1960's New York. And my mother's reaction to this movie was why they had such an issue showing any Latinos in it at all? And that's a valid question, we were in the 60's, we were getting drafted and getting our heads blown off in Vietnam just like all the other American soldiers. Yet this movie won't take even a minute to acknowledge our existence beyond a few shots of Fidel Castro? Yeah its not like we were doing anything special in the 60's, Cesar Chavez was only leading a nation wide boycott against grapes and fighting for the rights of migrant workers. There were also the 1968 school walkouts, the formation of such groups as The Brown Berets and The Young Lords. Now I know they had a lot to cover, but really they couldn't take some time to at least mention Cesar Chavez, Jeremy Sisto and Josh Hamilton characters were suppose to be such activities, neither could mention they were joining the "nation wide" boycott against California grapes? Movies like Steal This Movie, RFK and even Panthers manage to all acknowledge the existence of Latinos and Panthers even had shots of The Brown Berets along with Hippies and College Students at a Free Huey rally. A movie about The Black Power Movement manages to show Latinos, yet a movie called The 60's treated us like we didn't exist, what's wrong with that picture? And even better was that Panthers came out a good four years before the 60's did.Thankfully the movie Walkout came out in 2006 and was the first movie to finally focus on the Hispanic experience of the 60's with the East LA public school walkouts. And then someone actually complained that Walkout didn't have any White people walking out of the schools or backing up the Mexican kids. Yeah there are no Latinos and barely any Asian beyond the deliver guy in this movie, so why should we have them in ours? Now personally I would love for their to be a real 60's movie that actually remembers that the whole country wasn't just White and Black. And that actually remembers that the biggest achievement of the decade was the joining of the all the groups in a time of war and racial tension. This movie was not it, not even close to it, it is a good nostalgia trip? I guess, but I like Steal This Movie way way better. When you make a 60's movie that can appeal to everyone experiences and then show how everyone truly came together despite all the resistance, brutality and war, then you've made a movie worthy to be called The 60's.P.S. But on the small plus side, the acting in this movie was really good, I thought the whole cast did great.

duce122 The 60s (1999) D: Mark Piznarski. Josh Hamilton, Julia Stiles, Jerry O'Connell, Jeremy Sisto, Jordana Brewster, Leonard Roberts, Bill Smitrovich, Annie Corley, Charles S. Dutton. NBC mini-series (later released to video/DVD as full length feature film) about the treacherous 1960s, as seen through the eyes of both a white family and a black family. The film's first half is driven by the excellent performance of Dutton as Reverend Willie Taylor and evenly spreads the storyline between the families. However, Dutton's character is killed halfway through and the black family is completely forgotten in a dull, incoherent, and downright awful 2nd half. RATING: 4 out of 10. Not rated (later rated PG-13 for video/DVD release).

erwan_ticheler The 60's is a great movie(I saw it completely in one night) about the hippy movement in the late 60's. Although the title would suggest otherwise the first 5 years of the 60's are not really important in this film.The main character of the movie is Michael,a political activist who goes on the road in the US against the Vietnam-war. There he meets his girlfriend,Sarah.Michael's brother,Brian,goes to Vietnam to fight(what a surprise!).He comes back from the war and changes in a "Tom Cruise Born on the fourth of July" look a like and then into a Hippy.His dad is a pro-vietnam war type of guy(what a surprise!!).Michael's sister Kate gets pregnant from a Rock & Roll artist and runs away from home and goes to San Francisco during the summer of love. The ending is very poor(father becomes a liberal and everybody is happy),but I let this slip away from my vote(the rest of the movie is very good!). The performances by the actors are pretty good and the soundtrack of the movie is absolutely brilliant. All the main events of the sixties are in the movie,like the murders on JFK and Martin Luther King aswell as the big hippy protests,the summer of love and Woodstock! Look closely for Wavy"Woodstock Speaker"Gravy(What we have in mind is breakfast in bed for 400.000!) as a first aid employee at the Woodstock festival!In the end,the 60's is a beautiful movie about a beautiful decade! 10/10

Monkasi "The '60s" TV miniseries would have you believe that between the years 1962 and 1969, the United States of America - the last conservative stronghold of the Western world - did an abrupt about-face and sped off to the left, never to return. Not only is this a gross generalization, but it is also based on naive assumptions and faulty logic that anyone with a high school diploma can readily refute.Take the issue of race, for example. This movie argues that Negroes were relentlessly persecuted all the way up to 1965, so what choice did they have but to rebel? Well, maybe America's racist chickens DID come home to roost in the Sixties - but it wasn't because white Americans were just sitting idly by. Full equality for African-Americans had already been provided for by the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and '64 and by the Voting Rights Act of '65, so there was absolutely no reason for young black men to go hog wild during the latter part of the decade. They may have looked smart in their snappy berets, but in reality most - if not all - advocates of Black Power succeeded only in making a mockery of the civil rights movement with their penchant for violence and their irrational fear of all whites."The '60s" likewise tries to prove that prior to 1962 and the dancing of The Twist, exuberant sexuality in America simply didn't exist. What nonsense. The so-called sexual revolution wasn't really so radical when one considers that the forces behind it had been fermenting for decades (Margaret Sanger's crusade for birth control, for instance). The people who put this miniseries together apparently also consider the Fifties to be a time of cardboard, puritanical sexlessness. But that belief simply doesn't hold water. Was it not during the '50s that Elvis Presley provocatively swiveled his hips and Marilyn Monroe had her dress blown up past her waist? Not to mention Playboy magazine, Bettie Page pinups, and the word "rock 'n' roll" itself, which was originally a euphemism for sex. When you get right down to it, the revolution wouldn't have come as quickly as it did had it not been for the introduction of the birth control pill in 1960, which made sex more common only because it made it less hazardous.And what about Vietnam? This movie simply shows that conflict blowing up in our faces in 1964. What it doesn't show is that the war in Indochina had been raging since 1954 - ten years earlier. The top brass in Washington - if not the American public at large - had been keeping abreast of the events in Southeast Asia since day one. In fact, Dwight D. Eisenhower had the opportunity to nip the entire Vietnam conflict in the bud during his first term, when he refused to give aid to the French at the siege of Dienbienphu. Yes, LBJ must bear the brunt of the blame for what happened to our boys; but we wouldn't have gotten into such a pickle in the first place if Ike hadn't sat on the teakettle a decade earlier. The movie also focuses almost exclusively on the activities of war protesters, failing to note that most Americans actually supported the war to the bitter end.One final note: the movie opens with an ironic presentation of that bland, insipid, happy-go-lucky Fifties sitcom "Ozzie and Harriet." Good point, but it's not as if we were all watching blood-soaked shoot-'em-ups and kinky S&M on TV by 1969. As a matter of fact, by the end of the decade Americans were watching bland, insipid, happy-go-lucky Seventies sitcoms like "The Brady Bunch."I may be only 20 years old, but I know my American history. And "The '60s" gets a lot of it wrong.