ZacAttackFeelsGood So there's a lower middle-class family in Chicago who live a very conservative existence. Well, what happens when their oldest son goes to Vietnam, their youngest son becomes a civil rights activist, and their daughter gets knocked up? The '60s happen, and this mini-series shows the family's trials and tribulations during a truly extraordinary decade.What I loved about "The '60s" is that the story is not unlike the normal stories that one would hear about families from back then. The 1960s were a confusing time, with people taking sides and going against everything they were ever raised to believe. The individual stories of the characters keep the big picture interesting. I couldn't wait to see Part 2 when Part 1 ended.Great acting performances by all, especially Jerry O'Connell for his depiction of a Vietnam Veteran who goes in a patriot and comes out a basket-case.I recommend "The '60s" to anyone who wants to see a realistic depiction of one of the greatest eras in United States History. You definitely won't be disappointed.

sbsakin The "movie" (it was a TV series converted in movie for other locations) has lots of things about the 60s? Yes, plenty of nostalgia. The movie presents many historical facts about the sixties? Yes, too much. The movie has 60s aesthetics? Yes, a lot, mainly the music, which is great (the best thing in fact). The movie has a plot? No.This is the problem with the movie is that there is not plot. They try to link many important happenings of the 60s with the history of two families, but the characters are shallow and the drama is artificial. Incredible enough, the characters were the main protagonists in many important moments of the history, making it cliché.The movie is good for those who don't know a thing about the sixties and want to learn more about the culture and history, in a superficial way. Of course it gives a dreamy and magic representation of the decade, so it is advisable to consult and encyclopedia after watching the movie to get your feet back on the ground. Maybe those who lived in the 60s may like it for the nostalgia, but certainly will not like the absurd and exaggerations. Anyway, you can always excuse yourself by saying that you watched because the soundtrack, because it is worthy the time watching a movie with no plot.

sgurgolo Oh well - this series is crap, i mean, absolutely. They should have been awarded for worst script, worst acting, worst interpretation of history, worst use of stereotypes, worst use of a fake mustache in an attempt to duplicate the Tom Cruise of the 4th July - but, miracle!, making him walk - worst cinematography, worst art directing, worst costumes, worst editing, worst leftism (i mean, this is how you lived your '68? You shoulda stayed home! C'mon dude, where's the politics), worst use of Bob Dylan clips (clips from the seventies in a sixties movie?). If you wanna be a die-hard nostalgic hippie substantially not caring about most of the political facets of it, if you can't read a book or you'd fall asleep, if you hate documentaries, if Woodstock to you is a little yellow bird, if you want to see some 80s haircuts misplaced in time, well this might be for you. I mean, Hair was a musical, a fantastic movie, it was not intended to be a portrait of a generation - but hell, it was 1000 times more realistic than this. Hey, if all the people in the USA during the sixties were dumb as the characters of this crap i think at least somebody had a good reason to fly to Vietnam: not hearing anything anymore from dummies country! I guess the sixties were definitely better than this, but, i mean, what was the worst year in the whole history? The less interesting year of all time? I don't know, but put that year in the hands of a medium-level director and he'll do something more enjoyable. Shame on whoever worked on this - none of you did a good job!

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.