bkoganbing It was not too much of a strain for Alan Alda to do Sweet Liberty as his character of Hawkeye Pierce from MASH stepped right from the small screen to the big. Imagine Hawkeye as an American history professor writing a book on the southern theater of the American Revolution and you've got a start to Sweet Liberty.Alda has not only written a book, but it was so good that he got some big bucks from Hollywood for the screen rights. And the company is going to film on location in North Carolina where Alda teaches history at a college and where he participates in the annual recreation of the Battle of Cowpens. But one read of what the Hollywood writers have done to his work and he's ready to sue.Well that's not going to work because they've got the contract and the lawyers to back them up. How to salvage his work, for that he turns to screenwriter Bob Hoskins to help him navigate the ways of the movie business jungle. Hoskins too would like to see his name on something worthwhile and maybe Academy Award winning.This involves Alda wooing in a different way stars of the film Michael Caine and Michelle Pheiffer. Caine is quite a wooer himself and the best performance from the supporting cast is that of Lois Chiles who plays Caine's wife who's decided he's been on too long a leash.But in the scenes he's in Bob Hoskins truly steals Sweet Liberty. He's the quintessential Hollywood man who drags Alan Alda along through the highways and byways of movie speak. Saul Rubinek is also good as a most harassed and egotistical director.I would like to have seen more of Lillian Gish playing Alda's dotty mother who wants to hook up with a bricklayer she had a LONG ago fling with. It's that way with Alzheimer's patients they remember something from ages ago, but not what they had for dinner yesterday. All I can say was the sex must have been fabulous.Sweet Liberty is nice sparkling comedy about the business of making movies.

elshikh4 This is one of the funniest movies that utilized the irony between truth and fiction through the eternal clash between history and art, to present an enjoyable comedy which mocks at both !Look at the movie's point of view out of its own cosmos : history is unknown, since nobody reads in the image's age. Cinema is just a lie to make a thrilling time, whether history is damaged or not; to create the artistic "lying" version of it! Movie stars are sick people after that creative lying sneaked into them, from their work to their daily behaviors, to become whether unfaithful to their wives (Michael Caine), or at least schizophrenic (Michelle Pefiffer). The director is a cat's-paw in the hands of giant studio that wants nothing but money and down with the credibility. So, the writer becomes the last man standing, or the last honorable worrier for the truth; which turns him into the enemy. Consequently, he finds that the only heroic solution is to deal randomly and impudently, like all the others, to achieve just one thing he believes in, by the way he exactly wants. To grow eventually – despite all of his pure idealistic principles – into one of the liars, and a shield in the machine of cinema (not history !) as the last shot reveals to us sarcastically; where (Alan Alda) listens to the TV reporter and her question about "the secret of his movie's success" to find no answer but smiling with vanity, or as a ridicule of everything !This movie is hilarious, however so believable. The performance was flawless. In fact, the whole cast was great to an extent where you feel how this is not acting at all ! The comedy is ironic and thoughtful in the same time, because of that top notch script by (Alan Alda) which was genius with some talented details : The short storyline of the old mother and her needing of lying to be happy, the big climax to achieve one victory by "the historical truth" side, and to embody the real conflict of the movie through a wonderful droll battle, not to mention small moments but so rich; like the scene of (Michael Caine) and his story about meeting (Winston Churchill); it could say a lot about the effect of WW2 on a character as disordered as his, however leaving the story as it is (true or false) is one wicked wink to us about the meaning of the movie, and its main irony.Finally, did (Alda) mean that illusion is the (Sweet Liberty) from all the annoying facts that we live in our lives ? Or that truth nowadays is the (Sweet Liberty) from all the lies that we sunk under them ? Whatever the answer is, asking the question proves how (Alda) is an intelligent movie-maker, and how he managed to make profound and entertaining comedy. Actually, it's wholly rare plus interesting for me as a scriptwriter myself and a previous student of history too.

dbborroughs I like this very silly movie about the making of a movie set during the Revolutionary War. History takes a back seat to the backstage madness as film crew invades a small town in the American South... ...except that this film was filmed on Long Island. Living on the Island I get great joy watching all the technical gaffes in the film, only the lead characters cars have non-New York license plates, a Long Island Railway Train goes by in the background and on it goes. You don't have to have sharp eyes to see the errors, they are glaring if you know that they are there. They don't take away from the fun, they add to it since as Alan Alda's character quickly finds out, there is nothing real about making movies.The cast is great across the board, with everyone seeming to have such a good time its infectious. See this movie, its just a lot of fun.

drosse67 The "making of a Big Hollywood Movie" is certainly not a new idea for a comedy. Over the years there have been many movies like this--most recently David Mamet's "State and Main." What Alan Alda did for this movie is playfully comment on the state of the blockbuster (six years before Robert Altman's "The Player"). In 1986, the "blockbuster movie" was in its early stages. This film originally came out around the same time as Top Gun--case in point. Saul Rubinek plays the obnoxious Hollywood director (what? An obnoxious director?) who turns Alda's historical, and serious, book about the American Revolution into a romantic comedy, complete with big stars who take their clothes off. What makes this movie different from Alda's other films is that there are no serious undertones. Everyone is having a great time, and it shows. Michelle Pfeiffer, in one of her first starring roles, has rarely been funnier. Michael Caine struts his best comic stuff. And Bob Hoskins--how can you go wrong? The film has an obvious mid '80s feel (the music is terrible), and Alda's direction seems more suited for television, but this is still an enjoyable movie, less successful and acidic in its approach to Hollywood and its stars and blockbusters (compared to Sunset Blvd., The StuntMan, and of course The Player) but still worth watching.