Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

BlazeLime Strong and Moving!

GarnettTeenage The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

SimonJack The Cuban Missile Crisis of Oct. 16-28, 1962, was the closest the world came to nuclear war. It began when the U.S. discovered that the Soviet Union was building nuclear missile sites in Cuba. The U.S. set up an ocean blockade to stop any further Russian war shipments going to the country. The Soviet-Cuban work continued on 35 missile sites. When the first became operational, the U.S. was ready to bomb the sites and launch a ground attack on Cuba. The crisis ended when Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev capitulated. He agreed to withdraw all Soviet missiles from Cuba in exchange for the U.S. promise never to invade Cuba. People should be wary of sources that describe the basis for the event otherwise. The Encyclopedia Britannica article describes it succinctly. It says it was a "major confrontation that brought the United States and the Soviet Union close to war over the presence of Soviet nuclear-armed missiles in Cuba.""The Missiles of October" is a TV movie of the event, based on Robert Kennedy's 1969 book, titled "Thirteen Days." This is a fine dramatization with a huge cast of prominent actors. They portray key roles of people involved in the crisis. They include Pres. John F. Kennedy, White House staff, the Cabinet, and congressional leaders. Others are top military officers and members of the press. On the Soviet side are Premier Nikita Khrushchev and other Russian leaders. This film is a good historical look at the event and near worldwide disaster. It shows the struggles of government leaders as they wrestle with the crisis and try to establish détente. It gives a good picture of the stress of those in authority dealing with crises, including the differences of views among people. For generations long after the Cold War, this film can be a poignant reminder of a scary time in history. The world truly came very close to nuclear war and disaster. All of the cast do a fine job in portraying the key figures of the time. The production is very well done. It shows the details of the crisis from both sides of it, although much of the Soviet internal concerns must be conjecture on Kennedy's part.

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.

Wolf (alphaspace) I find this movie now on DVD one of the most compelling works of art it has ever been my pleasure to behold. This movie is from the less is more school. No high tech camera angles and silly special effects get in your way here. No stupid insipid love story tangles its way through the plot where some couple must give you today's obligatory R Rated steamy love scene at some point when you just wished the action would go on. This movie is just cold hearts, raw nerves, hardened steal will's of both sides exposed in abundance as the world of the early 1960's creeped toward thermonuclear oblivion in the Cuban Missile Crisis.Brinksmanship and a world tittering on the brink of a testosterone cliff a fall from which guranteed no return to life as it existed before is what this movie was about. Missiles of October is told in a play format. The sets are obviously sets so you do not waste your time on the decorations of the people or the places. You simply are given a reference of where you are by the set. The real action is the dialogue the intrique in the tangled the goings on. This movie works on a level of raw emotion. The missiles of October is a movie stripped bare of the heavy syrup and confectionary sugar laden movies of today. The Missiles of October does not spoon feed the audience each moment of their movie experience till only one rather inexcapable formulalic conclusion offered by the screen writer can be reached.The Cuban Missile Crisis was a series of mis-steps wrong judgement calls and finally at the 11th hour some common sense where. In this movie both sides The Soviet Union and the United States had to get off their high horses and admit we together do not want to end human kinds existence as a species on this earth and take almost every other living thing with us as we exit. The fact that the set's look deliberately cheesy and the acting is done as a play just makes the truly superior acting stand out and grab you all that much more. Oh to say I was pleased with The Missiles of October is to dabble in understatement up past your neck for I in all ways loved it such that I can not be without two copies of this in my home. One to watch and one to keep in a safe fire resistant place. The Missile's of October blew me away because it is true, this happened in real life. I was just a baby at the time but I lived through this time. This movie in play format is awesome because the acting was first rate and people this was high drama life or death stakes would have affected all of us had it gone wrong because it was all real life baby and no movie gets any better than that in my humble opinion.Oh and its like way educational too so buy this one its one of the WOLF's major must haves like number one on my serious subjects list.

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.