I watched this when it was first broadcast, living at the time in Washington DC, where the press was harrumphing about what a dangerous, subversive, anti-social act it would be to watch this paranoid fantasy. Naturally, such indignation made me even more eager to see it. By the time I'd gotten to Day 4 of this dog's breakfast, I was stupefied with boredom, but kept going until the end, convinced that no filmmaker could invest this much time into a project and not have a terrific payoff at the end, to compensate for the glacial buildup. No such luck. The show ended as it started, a colossal waste of time.
I've read that this was based on a story originally by Ben Stein, who still finds the memory of the way it was slaughtered too painful to talk about. The brainless lefty, Kris Kristofferson, when asked why he took such an uncharacteristic role (leader of a revolt against Soviet overlords of a conquered America) answered that he did it because he thought another actor might have been able to do serious damage in such a role. That is, another actor might have actually done the job he was hired to do and made the role believable. No risk of Kristofferson falling into such a trap - he emotes throughout with the energy of high-speed oatmeal. Every scene seems to be on the verge of delivering something exciting and engaging, then falls lifeless to the ground.
It's hard to be sure just what was the motive behind the making of such a confused mess. But I think that people who see it as a cautionary tale are misreading the makers' intent, and forgetting the era it was made in. Coming as it did at the end of the Reagan era, I think it was Hollywood's poke in the eye at the triumphalists among the American Right, a sneering "So you think you're so good?" fantasy of a prostrate, failed America losing out to the hardier, more determined Communists. In that way, it is less a nightmare than a leftist wet dream.
I've read that this was based on a story originally by Ben Stein, who still finds the memory of the way it was slaughtered too painful to talk about. The brainless lefty, Kris Kristofferson, when asked why he took such an uncharacteristic role (leader of a revolt against Soviet overlords of a conquered America) answered that he did it because he thought another actor might have been able to do serious damage in such a role. That is, another actor might have actually done the job he was hired to do and made the role believable. No risk of Kristofferson falling into such a trap - he emotes throughout with the energy of high-speed oatmeal. Every scene seems to be on the verge of delivering something exciting and engaging, then falls lifeless to the ground.
It's hard to be sure just what was the motive behind the making of such a confused mess. But I think that people who see it as a cautionary tale are misreading the makers' intent, and forgetting the era it was made in. Coming as it did at the end of the Reagan era, I think it was Hollywood's poke in the eye at the triumphalists among the American Right, a sneering "So you think you're so good?" fantasy of a prostrate, failed America losing out to the hardier, more determined Communists. In that way, it is less a nightmare than a leftist wet dream.