Victor Field Is there any other time period that has been so exhaustively covered by television (or the media in general) as the 1960s? No. And do we really need yet another trip through that turbulent time? Not really. But if we must have one, does it have to be as shallow as "The '60s"? I like to think that co-writers Bill Couturie and Robert Greenfield had more in mind for this two-part miniseries than what ultimately resulted, especially given Couturie's involvement in the superb HBO movie "Dear America: Letters Home From Vietnam" which utilized little original music and no original footage, letting the sights and sounds of the time speak for themselves. This presentation intercuts file footage with the dramatic production, but it doesn't do anyone any favours by trying to do too much in too little time; like so many of its ilk, it's seen from the point of view of one family. But the children of the family seem to be involved tangentially with almost every major event of the '60s (it's amazing that one of them doesn't go to the Rolling Stones gig at Altamont), making it seem less like a period drama and more like a Cliff Notes version of the decade.The makers rush through it so much that there's little or no time to give the characters any character, with the stick figures called our protagonists off screen for ages at a time - the children's father is especially clichéd - and then when they're back on BLAMMO! it's something else. Garry Trudeau could teach the filmmakers a thing or two about doing this kind of thing properly. In fairness, Jerry O'Connell, Jordana Brewster, Jeremy Sisto, Julia Stiles and Charles S. Dutton give their material the old college try, but they're wasted (especially the latter two); it's undeniably good to see David Alan Grier in a rare straight role as activist Fred Hampton, and Rosanna Arquette (in an uncredited cameo in part 2) is always welcome.What isn't welcome is how "The '60s" drowns the soundtrack with so many period songs that it ultimately reduces its already minimal effect (and this may well be the only time an American TV presentation about post-60s America never mentions the British Invasion - no Beatles, no Rolling Stones... then again, there's only so much tunes you can shoehorn into a soundtrack album, right?). Capping its surface-skimming approach to both the time and the plot with an almost out-of-place happy ending, "American Dreams" and "The Wonder Years" did it all much, much better. Nothing to see here you can't see elsewhere, people... except for Julia Stiles doing the twist, that is.

choosenfaith I enjoyed the plot, The cast did a great job. If you ever seen Woodstock. This is in your ball park. The soundtrack is just as good as the movie. Julia Stiles proves that she is a great actress, Jerry O'Connell once again has proven his talent as an actor. This is one not to miss. If you did you wish you hadn't.

sychonic I never actually thought anything could make me understand the police brutality that occurred during the Democratic Convention in 1968 in Chicago, but this one sure comes close. The awful human beings that rioted in the public parks, with their whining and their complaining and their drug use and violence seemed richly deserving of the things they got. If this movie is worth anything, it's instructive as to how history can be distorted to suit a particular kind of political and cultural agenda. It is very sympathetic to those for which little sympathy is deserved. It suits those who actually make these movies to try and justify the things that they largely did during the past, even thought the rest of the country didn't. The heroes of the movie end up being the villains, and those who grew up in luxury and refused responsibility or respect end up being the applauded. It's utterly mystifying. The characters involved here are cardboard, with high school drama dropouts as their creators. It's undeniably hard to create a movie that can depict and entire decade and its spirit, but this one not only fails, but seems like it's not even trying. Play some sixties rock music, show a menagerie of hippies, a melange of pot smoke, and a montage of video clips from a truly tortuous time. Take the advice of the insightful reviewer previously and read up on what happened during this time, the real events, the real issues. Bobby Kennedy wasn't a saint (he's actually the one who ordered Martin Luther King to be bugged while he entertained prostitutes), and Barry Goldwater wasn't the devil, nor the reverse--but it's hardly the way the makers of this swill would have people believe.

JuanitaG It's scary when aging baby-boomers start remembering the 1960s as the "good ole days." "The 60's" is a bloated ode to the decade of drugs, sex, and irresponsibility. The acting and writing by all of the characters is sup-par at best. The only thing worse than this mini-series was "The 70s," which aired a year later.If you want a historical perspective, I suggest you don't watch this mini-series, but go to the library. If you want to see movies about 1960's, I suggest watching "KIDS" and "TRAFFIC." These two movies accurately describe the awful legacy this decade gave to younger generations., which I belong to.