Sharkflei Your blood may run cold, but you now find yourself pinioned to the story.

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Benas Mcloughlin Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Abegail Noëlle While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

papamac630 One of the more difficult tasks when filming a subject whose outcome is already known is making it believable and exciting...Ron Howard did it in "Apollo 13", and this movie accomplishes the same goal...the story never really stops, with fast-moving discussions and back-and-forth scenes between America and the USSR...the producers excelled at presenting an all-star cast for this movie, with Martin Sheen an eerie choice as Bobby Kennedy...who knew the West Wing was in his future...an intriguing element to this topic is watching this version, and then viewing "Thirteen Days"...the differences are striking, with some characters in either film not showing up in the other...and you won't seen LBJ at all in "Missiles"...while only in two or three scenes in "Thirteen Days"...an amazing occurrence when you consider that most of the documents and info on the Cuban missile crisis have been declassified...this movie is available on video...I purchased it online...so get it and enjoy a look back at how close we really came...

writerasfilmcritic All things considered, "The Missiles of October" is a pretty good (if abbreviated) account of the Cuban Missle Crisis, but I can't agree with those who conclude that it was a perfect production or that William Devane did a fantastic job portraying JFK. Frankly, he was much closer to RFK than JFK in appearance and demeanor. Kennedy was very handsome and charismatic, whereas Devane is simply not that attractive. He had buck teeth, a hooked nose, and his haircut wasn't quite right. He didn't sound much like Kennedy, either. His mannerisms, although obviously studied (particularly the way he smoked a cigar) simply didn't evoke Kennedy for me. Nonetheless, he did a credible job at a demanding task and his performance definitely improved as the show built to its inevitable climax. I found him least effective portraying Kennedy on the stump and most effective when he was extremely worried that the effects of blockading Cuba might spin out of control and touch off catastrophic warfare. At one point, he was practically curling up into himself, nearly in tears right in front of his advisers while his brother looked on, obviously very concerned that he was cracking under the strain. I doubt it really happened in quite that way, but it was a very dramatic moment and one of Martin Sheen's better scenes, too. In general, however, I didn't care for Sheen's portrayal of RFK. I found him too intense and nasal and he seemed to bully those who disagreed with his take on events. Some of the other actors were more notable in their supporting roles. Howard Da Silva as Russian Premier Nikita Khrushchev was excellent. John Dehner, in a smaller part as a worldliwise former Secretary of State Dean Acheson, did a very competent job, as well. Harris Yulin as KGB agent Alexander Fomin was convincing, and so was Paul Lambert as John Scalia, the ABC correspondent he contacted. I also appreciated the portrayal of Russian Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin by Albert Paulsen. Kenneth Tobey as Admiral Anderson, Chief of Naval Operations in charge of the blockade, was convincing as the military man trying to follow difficult orders while tolerating the slights of less experienced superiors, and Ralph Bellamy's portrayal of UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson was very good, in my opinion. It is not generally remembered how important Stevenson was in turning world opinion sharply in our favor.What I found most interesting was the way the more dovish elements counseling Kennedy overruled the hawkish advisers, who called for bombing of the missile sites followed by an invasion of Cuba. The consensus settled on the blockade, instead, which the Kennedy brothers preferred. Far from proving more prudent and measured, however, it came very close to touching off the war they hoped to prevent. In fact, it looked as if the bombing and invasion might become necessary after all. This wasn't so well known when the events actually transpired, where it appeared that Kennedy had stepped up to the plate by calling for the naval quarantine of Cuba, Stevenson embarrassed the Russians at the UN by showing pictures of US overflights of the island, Khrushchev quickly backed down, and order was restored. As this show depicts, matters weren't resolved behind the scenes quite so easily. We really did come uncomfortably close to a nuclear war, despite the efforts of many cooler heads attempting to avoid it.This was a very good TV movie, regardless of its limitations, and it is very instructive about that historic time. For those interested in a more in-depth analysis, I recommend reading "The Crisis Years," by Michael Beschloss. It's a big book, but well worth the investment in time and effort.

Charles McGrew Generally very good, but "kennedy-friendly", that is, JFK comes out the consumate crisis-manager, when in reality nobody was in control of events (JFK and Khrushchev truly were "sleepwalking through history").To be fair to the makers of the film, the script is based on available documents in 1974. Nowadays, we know that Kennedy explicitly traded existing US bases in Turkey for the USSR bases in Cuba -- something that was denied for years -- and that the Russians had tactical nuclear weapons in Cuba to defend against invasion; which would have immediately turned into a direct confrontation into the nuclear realm. In reality, the Cuban Missile Crisis seems to have been "won" (narrowly) by the Soviets -- although Khrushchev's career didn't survive it (but Castro's certainly did :-)Wonderful work by William Devane as JFK (Martin Sheen as RFK has a little more trouble with the accent, but the two of them portray the personalities of the two men very well), but perhaps the best portrayal of all is Howard da Silva as Nikita Khrushchev. Very nice casting choices (and performances) for pretty much every player. Long, but thorough.

jacksflicks Some have berated the "The Missiles of October" for being over-long. Nonsense! (One genius who complained did, however, like the performance of "Marin Short". Sounds like a 12 year-old. Hey, maybe he is!) It would have been over-long if it were a boring story with boring performances. But "The Missiles of October" is neither. The story is, of course, riveting, whether you were around during the early sixties or not. And the performances - the guy who cast the three main characters, JFK (William Devane), RFK (Martin Sheen) and Khrushchev (Howard Da Silva), should have got an Emmy. Martin Sheen may have over-done Bobby Kennedy a bit, but it should be noted, that RFK's "Kennedy accent" was much thicker than JFK's, almost to the point of self-caricature.Nor is the film "dated," as another reviewer would have it. The TV claustrophobic atmosphere is in perfect keeping with the tight, closed, suffocating tension which actually existed in the real situation. The crisis did not occur out of doors, or in halls - it occurred in a few rooms. "The Missiles of October" possesses the hallmark of classic drama: though you may know how it ends, you want to watch it again and again.