I remember when this movie was first shown on HBO...it had the kind of gripping action that made you sit, watch, and fear for your life...the actors did a great job of realistically portraying their roles...with special kudos to Patrick Watson as Don Tobin and Helen Shaver as Dorian Waldorf...Watson's uneasiness at the end of the movie does not spoil the ending, which will set the hair on your neck straight up and send chills down your spine...but it does provide a view into what might face the American public should the unthinkable occur...add this movie to the growing list of selections that should have been out on DVD way before now...it is dated to some extent, but the overall premise still rings true...and will scare the daylights out of you...
27 Reviews
Good Political Thriller
TheExpatriate7003 June 2012
Countdown to Looking Glass is a good speculative thriller examining the outbreak of World War III. Made during the Cold War, it is rife with the tension of the period. It also gives a haunting portrait of how the apocalypse could have happened.
Through a series of news reports, we see events spiral out of control following a financial collapse in South America. We see both the televised reports and the behind the scenes debates among the reporters and their producers. The film not only has a keen eye for political developments, but also a good sense of the role of media in shaping the world.
The film also wisely avoids showing the actual nuclear exchange. Rather than imitate The Day After, which had come out a year earlier, the film keeps its focus on the lead up to disaster, heightening the tension. It is a worthy entry in the early 80s end of the world genre.
Through a series of news reports, we see events spiral out of control following a financial collapse in South America. We see both the televised reports and the behind the scenes debates among the reporters and their producers. The film not only has a keen eye for political developments, but also a good sense of the role of media in shaping the world.
The film also wisely avoids showing the actual nuclear exchange. Rather than imitate The Day After, which had come out a year earlier, the film keeps its focus on the lead up to disaster, heightening the tension. It is a worthy entry in the early 80s end of the world genre.
Well Done Docudrama Whose Message Is Still Relevant
jmd634 April 2007
I first saw this movie when I was in my late teens. Would love to see it again. At that time the Soviet Union was still the menacing enemy of the free world. We also were only a few years removed from the Iranian hostage taking at the US embassy in Tehran, and just months after the bombing of the US Marine Barracks in Beirut (carried out by Hezbollah who is supported by Iran as well as Syria) and some of us started to realize that we had a new enemy, Islamo-Fascists. Without giving away too many details, the movie would still play well today. Although this movie centers around a possible military conflict with the Soviets, most it is played out in the Persian Gulf, specifically the Strait of Hormuz. One can clearly replace the Soviets with the Iranians. If you watch this movie with that in mind you will not only be entertained, but you will feel as if you are watching events as they might just unfold in the years (or months) to come. The way the film is made, in docu-drama style, really makes it as if you are watching breaking events unfold on FOX/CNN or MSNBC. The late Scott Glenn is outstanding as is the rest of the cast. It may have been 20 years since I saw this movie, but it has always stayed fresh in my mind. You will definitely see how close to reality this movie may really be someday. Very well done.
A Pretty Good Political Thriller
Uriah438 February 2014
Because of the inability of several South American countries to pay their debts the United States is plunged into an economic crisis which has far-reaching repercussions. Oman, for example, experiences a revolution and this results in a communist government which tilts the balance of power over to the Soviet Union and further escalates tension in the Middle East. Soon the United States and the Soviet Union become directly involved in a high-stakes military standoff which neither side seems to be able to resolve. Anyway, rather than disclose the rest of the story and risk spoiling the film for those who haven't seen it I will just say that for a "made-for-television" movie this was a pretty good political thriller. While I didn't particularly care for the ending I liked the performances of Scott Glenn (as "Michael Boyle") and Helen Shaver ("Dorian Waldorf"). I especially liked the scene involving the U.S.S. Nimitz when it reached the Gulf of Oman. Good tension. Be that as it may I think this is a movie that most viewers will probably enjoy and I rate it as above average.
Gripping, fascinating, and a little frustrating
runamokprods8 November 2011
Very uneven, but ultimately effective tale of the build up to a nuclear showdown between the US and USSR, told almost entirely by news reports, using real life commentators like Newt Gingrich, Eugene McCarthy and Eric Severied.
The problem is when the film 'breaks character' to get into the personal lives of Michael Murphy as a government official and Helen Shaver as a reporter. Not only do these (few) scenes feel clunky, melodramatic, and not well written, but they interrupt the whole style and flow of the film, without adding much.
Also, some of the 'news' interviews are frustratingly short – if you're going to go to the trouble to get such interesting real people to play along, why not give them time for more in depth thoughts?
Last, the 'War of the Worlds' type disclaimer at the top of the show isn't great, since it sort of gives away the ending.
But all that said, this is still mostly chilling, thought provoking stuff. Similar to, if not quite as effect as the great 'Special Bulletin'.
The problem is when the film 'breaks character' to get into the personal lives of Michael Murphy as a government official and Helen Shaver as a reporter. Not only do these (few) scenes feel clunky, melodramatic, and not well written, but they interrupt the whole style and flow of the film, without adding much.
Also, some of the 'news' interviews are frustratingly short – if you're going to go to the trouble to get such interesting real people to play along, why not give them time for more in depth thoughts?
Last, the 'War of the Worlds' type disclaimer at the top of the show isn't great, since it sort of gives away the ending.
But all that said, this is still mostly chilling, thought provoking stuff. Similar to, if not quite as effect as the great 'Special Bulletin'.
Pay toll or be annihilated, tough choice
innis5718 July 2015
Pretty good flick but a little unrealistic in it's premise. A previous reviewer commented that the Russian's wouldn't go to war over Saudi Arabia. Likewise, I find it hard to believe that a $10K tanker "fee" imposed by a Soviet client state would lead the US to rushing headlong towards WWIII. Far simpler and less risky to pay the relatively modest fee ( With the price of oil at the time around $70 a barrel and a modest size tanker capable of carrying well over one million barrels... well you do the math) and extract payment elsewhere. The US president came across as a total loon. The motivation just seemed contrived. Otherwise a watchable film.
Excellent TV Movie -- a solid "10"
rhackney27 December 2000
There were Threads, Day After, By Dawn's Early Light, plus more but I say this movie was the most believable nuclear war starting theory ever made. Never a dull moment in the movie and good acting throughout. A must have and see. A very scary movie - haunted me for days thereafter.
Very good, but
whatch-1793117 October 2020
The premise of the "debtor cartel" collapsing huge American banks. So, what happened to the Federal Reserve, which was created to specifically prevent this?
Also, the Strait of Hormuz toll per tanker was $10,000. So, like, under 20 cents a barrel? Granted, it was being coerced, but it seems like a lot more political options would be tried before going where this story goes.
I suppose, considering that this originated as a war game, they didn't worry too much about the specific backstory.
All that aside, it's a very solid entry for completists of that hair raising early 80's nuke flick-- if you were a kid in the 80s like me, well-- this is the insane lullabies we grew up with. I just kind of think, this Armageddon movie thing Generation X kids grew up with just MIGHT have contributed to us being a laid back slackers.
To be fair, of course, our elder Boomers had this too, and Millenials had to deal with 9/11 , and whatever this current generation is, Covid will warp their reality too. So it's not hunky dory to anyone. I do believe X had a larger dose than most.
Also, the Strait of Hormuz toll per tanker was $10,000. So, like, under 20 cents a barrel? Granted, it was being coerced, but it seems like a lot more political options would be tried before going where this story goes.
I suppose, considering that this originated as a war game, they didn't worry too much about the specific backstory.
All that aside, it's a very solid entry for completists of that hair raising early 80's nuke flick-- if you were a kid in the 80s like me, well-- this is the insane lullabies we grew up with. I just kind of think, this Armageddon movie thing Generation X kids grew up with just MIGHT have contributed to us being a laid back slackers.
To be fair, of course, our elder Boomers had this too, and Millenials had to deal with 9/11 , and whatever this current generation is, Covid will warp their reality too. So it's not hunky dory to anyone. I do believe X had a larger dose than most.
The last shot of this movie chills me to the bone...
SyxxNet2 June 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Don't read if you want to be surprised (Spoiler alert)
CTLG was another in the line of "nuclear war/confrontation" movies of the early 80s, along with "The Day After", "Threads", "By Dawn's Early Light", and "Special Bulletin". And of the "nuclear war" movies ("Special Bulletin" was about domestic terrorism using nukes), it was clearly the most chilling, at least to me.
Although I'm not certain, I believe that the movie was Canada's contribution to the genre; most of the actors are Canadian, and the "newscasts" during the movie happen on a network that begins with the letter "C".
The movie begins with a group of countries forming a "debtor's cartel" and defaulting on billions of dollars of payments to the US for loans made, and escalates from there into an oil embargo, and then clashes in the middle east. Through the movie we get the inside scoop on what's going on in Washington from a reporter working the story (Helen Shaver) and her boyfriend, who works in the White House (Michael Murphy). And we get how it is presented to the public on a network news program.
As the movie nears it's climax, the network's star reporter (Scott Glenn, doing some of his finest work as one of the most underrated actors of all time), aboard a US battleship in the Persian Gulf, is on the air with the network, live, when two nuclear bombs are used. All hell breaks loose.
The final shot of the movie is the President's Plane taking off from Andrews AFB in Washington late that night and the shot freeze-frames on the engines of the plane heading into the distance as the news coverage in the background goes to the piercing alarm used by the Emergency Broadcast System, and the announcer entones that the code name for nuclear war is Looking Glass. I was barely out of my teens when I first saw this movie, and it chilled me to the bone...and to this day, the site of a plane arching off into the night will bring the end of this movie back to my mind...
The movie is extremely (and I mean EXTREMELY) hard to find; i've long lost my video of it, and I would LOVE to see it come out on DVD. To my knowledge, at least where i've been, it's been seen or made available only three times. It originally aired as a feature on either HBO or Showtime (I forget which), then made it's way to the Fox Network as a "movie of the week" entry early in that network's history, and I have seen it only one other time, in a syndication movie package that aired on my local UPN affiliate sometime in the mid 90s.
If it ever airs in your area, GO OUT OF YOUR WAY TO SEE IT. Especially if you like this genre of film. It can be a bit slow moving at times, but overall, the experience will be a satisfying one.
My Score (out of 10) 9.5
CTLG was another in the line of "nuclear war/confrontation" movies of the early 80s, along with "The Day After", "Threads", "By Dawn's Early Light", and "Special Bulletin". And of the "nuclear war" movies ("Special Bulletin" was about domestic terrorism using nukes), it was clearly the most chilling, at least to me.
Although I'm not certain, I believe that the movie was Canada's contribution to the genre; most of the actors are Canadian, and the "newscasts" during the movie happen on a network that begins with the letter "C".
The movie begins with a group of countries forming a "debtor's cartel" and defaulting on billions of dollars of payments to the US for loans made, and escalates from there into an oil embargo, and then clashes in the middle east. Through the movie we get the inside scoop on what's going on in Washington from a reporter working the story (Helen Shaver) and her boyfriend, who works in the White House (Michael Murphy). And we get how it is presented to the public on a network news program.
As the movie nears it's climax, the network's star reporter (Scott Glenn, doing some of his finest work as one of the most underrated actors of all time), aboard a US battleship in the Persian Gulf, is on the air with the network, live, when two nuclear bombs are used. All hell breaks loose.
The final shot of the movie is the President's Plane taking off from Andrews AFB in Washington late that night and the shot freeze-frames on the engines of the plane heading into the distance as the news coverage in the background goes to the piercing alarm used by the Emergency Broadcast System, and the announcer entones that the code name for nuclear war is Looking Glass. I was barely out of my teens when I first saw this movie, and it chilled me to the bone...and to this day, the site of a plane arching off into the night will bring the end of this movie back to my mind...
The movie is extremely (and I mean EXTREMELY) hard to find; i've long lost my video of it, and I would LOVE to see it come out on DVD. To my knowledge, at least where i've been, it's been seen or made available only three times. It originally aired as a feature on either HBO or Showtime (I forget which), then made it's way to the Fox Network as a "movie of the week" entry early in that network's history, and I have seen it only one other time, in a syndication movie package that aired on my local UPN affiliate sometime in the mid 90s.
If it ever airs in your area, GO OUT OF YOUR WAY TO SEE IT. Especially if you like this genre of film. It can be a bit slow moving at times, but overall, the experience will be a satisfying one.
My Score (out of 10) 9.5
Still going strong
Warge1 July 2009
This old film shares the same traits as most other films about a nuclear war, this time as seen from the fourth wall, your TV screen and from the rooms of a news station.
As many other nuclear war movies, in order to really submerge the viewer into something unthinkable, this film does its homework very well, and having 'real' people like Newt Gingrich playing themselves only lends extra weight.
However, being filmed as mainly a series of news broadcasts, the film fails at showing the human side of the conflict, and that is a pity, because the buildup is excellent.
Of all the nuclear war films done in the 80's this is not the best - Threads show a nuclear war MUCH better. But that is not to say this or any other nuclear war film should not be seen - most do a splendid job showing a nuclear war from its respective perspective and Countdown to Looking Glass fits right in.
Since this is written in 2009, it feels like it is still very valid with our bank crisis, failing economy and tension i the middle-east, and the fact that Countdown is still doing fine is a testament to the value and message:
It could still happen.
As many other nuclear war movies, in order to really submerge the viewer into something unthinkable, this film does its homework very well, and having 'real' people like Newt Gingrich playing themselves only lends extra weight.
However, being filmed as mainly a series of news broadcasts, the film fails at showing the human side of the conflict, and that is a pity, because the buildup is excellent.
Of all the nuclear war films done in the 80's this is not the best - Threads show a nuclear war MUCH better. But that is not to say this or any other nuclear war film should not be seen - most do a splendid job showing a nuclear war from its respective perspective and Countdown to Looking Glass fits right in.
Since this is written in 2009, it feels like it is still very valid with our bank crisis, failing economy and tension i the middle-east, and the fact that Countdown is still doing fine is a testament to the value and message:
It could still happen.
Just another "end of the world" nuclear war flop . . .
Gatorman924 May 2015
When this movie came out I was well past the age of consent and had already completed two deterrent patrols on nuclear ballistic submarines. Ronald Reagan was president and the activity level of the unilateral nuclear disarmament/nuclear freeze noisemaking demographic was probably at its all-time peak. Their basic premise was that the best thing to do when faced with a threat as ominous as nuclear war was to panic. If the so-called "Pilgrims" had been made up of people of this type they would have never left England. That these people had far more energy, anxiety, lung-power, and just plain hot gas rather than plain old boring analytical ability, understanding, and judgment is perhaps best evidenced by the fact that within only five years after this movie came out the Berlin Wall fell, and only two years after that the whole shootin' match that made up the country now formerly known as the Soviet Union did, too, and all without so much as a spring-powered BB being fired across the Iron Curtain.
This movie is hardly unique. There have been a number of movies that have tried to deal with this issue and like the others this one falls flat in constructing a believable scenario that would lead to a nuclear confrontation. The history of the post-war period reminds me of the metaphor of a junior high school dance when I was growing up. That history makes it clear the Soviet Union was at least as afraid of us as we were of them - in fact, probably more so. They backed down in Greece and in Berlin and in Korea. They backed down in Cuba. They didn't even do more than complain loudly when we mined Haiphong Harbor even though that put the ships they were resupplying North Vietnam with in imminent actual danger of attack and destruction. They never intervened in any middle-eastern conflict except to supply Syria and Egypt in between wars that were confined only to the more comparatively minor countries (i.e., the ones that weren't Oil Powers) found in the region. And even then, they only did that to try to swing such states to siding with them in the United Nations, and to giving them some military basing ability in those countries which if they were lucky might accrue to them something more than a passing advantage in a genuine confrontation with the West. If they ever even sent advisers during the period when those countries were in an active state of hot, shooting war with Israel I don't remember it. In the end, they did not prevent the Israelis from soundly whipping their client states in the region in every Arab-Israeli war from 1947 to 1973.
Thus, they would not go to war over Saudi Arabia unless they had suddenly grown a pair like had never existed in all of Soviet history. For if you look at that history, whenever the Soviets actually had a choice they never got into it with anybody except those they saw as weak. It is one thing to attack the Finns or the Lithuanians or even the Ukranians but the United States of America is not just another Latvia or Estonia. Moreover, given the history of Saudi Arabia with both the UK and the US they comprehended perfectly well that that country was within the Western sphere of influence just as much as they take it for granted that we should understand that the Crimea is historically within their sphere. The filmmakers' premise is as weak as anybody the Russians have ever attacked in modern history except maybe Afghanistan.
When you add to that the generally contrived, artificial-looking quality of the dramatized news coverage and the clichéd romantic angle to the plot this thing develops a certain high-school-play kind of quality, but since none of your kids are in it, it fails to satisfy as entertainment. The truth is, you are about infinitely better served to spend your time watching something genuinely well-made like DR. STRANGELOVE or the original version of ON THE BEACH which are about literally one or more orders of magnitude better than this.
That said, I think I can agree to some extent with with one reviewer who said this was worth seeing just to see Newt Gingrich in it. Truly, the one interesting thing about this movie is the real-life people who agreed to appear in it, the big question which comes to mind being, WHY they did it. Here, Newt was at the beginning of his congressional career and surely he was looking for egocentric (if not narcissistic) self-aggrandizing attention in the way which has marked him throughout his political career. By contrast, fully 16 years after he gained but limited and short-lived attention in his 1968 attempt at a presidential bid Edmund Muskie appeared here in what looks like the last gasp for public attention of as hopeless a has-been as we have ever seen in American politics. And while apparently hardbitten and cynical realist Eric Sevareid appeared for some reason, it is not the only time he played himself in a fantasy and I have to guess that he really wasn't as much the realist he always seemed to be, or else maybe he was such a realist that he just liked the chance to pick up what was probably a handy little extra paycheck regardless of how silly a thing he had to do to get it. Most surprising to me was the appearance of Paul Warnke, who certainly had the reputation of a genuine foreign policy and national security professional of the first order. You'd think that guy would find this beneath him, but, well, who knows - maybe he liked the extra moolah too.
This movie is hardly unique. There have been a number of movies that have tried to deal with this issue and like the others this one falls flat in constructing a believable scenario that would lead to a nuclear confrontation. The history of the post-war period reminds me of the metaphor of a junior high school dance when I was growing up. That history makes it clear the Soviet Union was at least as afraid of us as we were of them - in fact, probably more so. They backed down in Greece and in Berlin and in Korea. They backed down in Cuba. They didn't even do more than complain loudly when we mined Haiphong Harbor even though that put the ships they were resupplying North Vietnam with in imminent actual danger of attack and destruction. They never intervened in any middle-eastern conflict except to supply Syria and Egypt in between wars that were confined only to the more comparatively minor countries (i.e., the ones that weren't Oil Powers) found in the region. And even then, they only did that to try to swing such states to siding with them in the United Nations, and to giving them some military basing ability in those countries which if they were lucky might accrue to them something more than a passing advantage in a genuine confrontation with the West. If they ever even sent advisers during the period when those countries were in an active state of hot, shooting war with Israel I don't remember it. In the end, they did not prevent the Israelis from soundly whipping their client states in the region in every Arab-Israeli war from 1947 to 1973.
Thus, they would not go to war over Saudi Arabia unless they had suddenly grown a pair like had never existed in all of Soviet history. For if you look at that history, whenever the Soviets actually had a choice they never got into it with anybody except those they saw as weak. It is one thing to attack the Finns or the Lithuanians or even the Ukranians but the United States of America is not just another Latvia or Estonia. Moreover, given the history of Saudi Arabia with both the UK and the US they comprehended perfectly well that that country was within the Western sphere of influence just as much as they take it for granted that we should understand that the Crimea is historically within their sphere. The filmmakers' premise is as weak as anybody the Russians have ever attacked in modern history except maybe Afghanistan.
When you add to that the generally contrived, artificial-looking quality of the dramatized news coverage and the clichéd romantic angle to the plot this thing develops a certain high-school-play kind of quality, but since none of your kids are in it, it fails to satisfy as entertainment. The truth is, you are about infinitely better served to spend your time watching something genuinely well-made like DR. STRANGELOVE or the original version of ON THE BEACH which are about literally one or more orders of magnitude better than this.
That said, I think I can agree to some extent with with one reviewer who said this was worth seeing just to see Newt Gingrich in it. Truly, the one interesting thing about this movie is the real-life people who agreed to appear in it, the big question which comes to mind being, WHY they did it. Here, Newt was at the beginning of his congressional career and surely he was looking for egocentric (if not narcissistic) self-aggrandizing attention in the way which has marked him throughout his political career. By contrast, fully 16 years after he gained but limited and short-lived attention in his 1968 attempt at a presidential bid Edmund Muskie appeared here in what looks like the last gasp for public attention of as hopeless a has-been as we have ever seen in American politics. And while apparently hardbitten and cynical realist Eric Sevareid appeared for some reason, it is not the only time he played himself in a fantasy and I have to guess that he really wasn't as much the realist he always seemed to be, or else maybe he was such a realist that he just liked the chance to pick up what was probably a handy little extra paycheck regardless of how silly a thing he had to do to get it. Most surprising to me was the appearance of Paul Warnke, who certainly had the reputation of a genuine foreign policy and national security professional of the first order. You'd think that guy would find this beneath him, but, well, who knows - maybe he liked the extra moolah too.
the Gingrich interview alone makes it worthwhile
tomtac30 April 2009
One thing has changed since this movie was shown in 1984. ... At the time, it had been a decade since the war in Vietnam had ended. America had lost its stomach for war, and this film about getting into another one would touch lots of nerves.
Now, three or four wars later (who's keeping count anymore?), it should be required viewing.
"Looking Glass" is the name given to the President's flying command post, called that because there are two such planes that look very much alike, mirror images of each other. One is real, the other is the decoy. A chilling piece of information that would convey, if the two planes ever took off, that we really are in a shooting, nuclear war. And as the steps towards the Big War are taken, there is a "countdown" to the takeoff of the Looking Glass command post and decoy. Hence the title.
Gritty realism, a strong strong strong feeling in my gut that, if "it" ever happened, "it" could look exactly like this. I remember that sober churning inside, when I saw this some time in the 1990s. Only this week I was reflecting on how little they actually spent on special effects, but what an explosive wallop they got out of the effects they had, fast paced by the script, the sets, the commentators, everything that HBO had available to tell the story from a network's point of view.
The film had to make me think, and I immediately realized what was the most hard hitting memorable scene for me.
(Not a spoiler, discloses nothing, and is very early in the film) The news anchor turns to interview a "talking head". It is Newt Gingrich, as he was back then, a young young congressperson on his way up.
The anchor points out that the crisis is very deadly. Gingrich agrees.
"We may die," the anchor persists. Again, an agreement.
Then the anchor asks "Is there anything worth dying for?" And Gingrich responds "Tragically, the answer is 'yes'".
He points out that if the US were to back down, we would be submitting to slavery, and that our freedom is worth dying for. Freedom does not come cheaply and should not be yielded. He comes across as more than a leader, certainly a statesman, and in this film performs the thankless job task of saying something we might not want to hear.
I have said this before -- I say a movie is very, very good if I have continued to remember and ponder on it, years and years later. And Looking Glass has stayed with me in that way.
Now, three or four wars later (who's keeping count anymore?), it should be required viewing.
"Looking Glass" is the name given to the President's flying command post, called that because there are two such planes that look very much alike, mirror images of each other. One is real, the other is the decoy. A chilling piece of information that would convey, if the two planes ever took off, that we really are in a shooting, nuclear war. And as the steps towards the Big War are taken, there is a "countdown" to the takeoff of the Looking Glass command post and decoy. Hence the title.
Gritty realism, a strong strong strong feeling in my gut that, if "it" ever happened, "it" could look exactly like this. I remember that sober churning inside, when I saw this some time in the 1990s. Only this week I was reflecting on how little they actually spent on special effects, but what an explosive wallop they got out of the effects they had, fast paced by the script, the sets, the commentators, everything that HBO had available to tell the story from a network's point of view.
The film had to make me think, and I immediately realized what was the most hard hitting memorable scene for me.
(Not a spoiler, discloses nothing, and is very early in the film) The news anchor turns to interview a "talking head". It is Newt Gingrich, as he was back then, a young young congressperson on his way up.
The anchor points out that the crisis is very deadly. Gingrich agrees.
"We may die," the anchor persists. Again, an agreement.
Then the anchor asks "Is there anything worth dying for?" And Gingrich responds "Tragically, the answer is 'yes'".
He points out that if the US were to back down, we would be submitting to slavery, and that our freedom is worth dying for. Freedom does not come cheaply and should not be yielded. He comes across as more than a leader, certainly a statesman, and in this film performs the thankless job task of saying something we might not want to hear.
I have said this before -- I say a movie is very, very good if I have continued to remember and ponder on it, years and years later. And Looking Glass has stayed with me in that way.
countdown to looking glass
whosbusiness2 November 2005
I got up late one night and turn on the telly. I watched in disbelief that soviet troops had entered west Germany, and the nuclear issue was being waved about.
The crosses to an air craft carrier that was actively hunting a Russian sub made me wonder what was going on. Who do I call?. This can't be real, even though we have been trained by the media to trust what the news channels tell us. This can't be happening, the super powers have been getting along fine, but what would it take to start a war. Could world war 3 break out, be fought,be won or lost in a flash. Maybe it was because I was tired and came in part way into the movie, but I got an insight into how those listening to H.G Well's original radio production of War of the worlds must have felt. Never been so glad for an ad break.
The crosses to an air craft carrier that was actively hunting a Russian sub made me wonder what was going on. Who do I call?. This can't be real, even though we have been trained by the media to trust what the news channels tell us. This can't be happening, the super powers have been getting along fine, but what would it take to start a war. Could world war 3 break out, be fought,be won or lost in a flash. Maybe it was because I was tired and came in part way into the movie, but I got an insight into how those listening to H.G Well's original radio production of War of the worlds must have felt. Never been so glad for an ad break.
grippingly realistic
gigalulu27 September 2007
I saw this movie on TV years ago when it came out. It reminds me of the original radio broadcast of "War Of The Worlds" that spread fear and panic throughout the east coast of the USA because the general public thought it was a "real" broadcast. If you tuned into it while the show was in progress, you'd swear you were watching the news as it was happening. It's done in a very effective and realistic newscast-type format. In my opinion,"Countdown To Looking Glass" is definitely one of those shows you can't shake out of your psyche. I agree with one reviewer's comments that it made their neck hairs stand on end - it was so grippingly realistic. You'll remember this one for the rest of your life.
Scary End Of The World Film
florida8726 October 2002
Outstanding Cold War TV movie. I loved this film, it's very shocking. Possibly my favorite Scott Glenn movie next to Gargoyles his debut film. The ending is excellent and, being in the Navy, very scary. Great end of the world as we know it flick. Remember it was made when Breshnav was Leader of USSR!
Great Movie
smacdonl200125 April 2006
It's low budget and a little out of date BUT PLEASE tell me where I can get a copy in DVD or VHS video! HBO the network which I believe I saw the movie back in the 1980's does not seem to support marketing the film so a good recommendation for a movie unavailable to the general public maybe a waste.
Now the movie.....The parts which seem to be "real" include small intentional technical flaws which just add to the realism. Using know newscasters just make it all the more believable. Reminded me a great deal of the film The missiles of Octoberbut with better scenery and acting.
Now the movie.....The parts which seem to be "real" include small intentional technical flaws which just add to the realism. Using know newscasters just make it all the more believable. Reminded me a great deal of the film The missiles of Octoberbut with better scenery and acting.
Realistic, scary Nuke Scenario
mr_hypocrite9 January 2004
"The Day After" tried to scare us with it's vision of nuclear horror. It failed. But "Countdown To Looking Glass" worked because it fictionalized the events leading up to a nuclear conflict. You basically watch it like you were watching CNN coverage of a Middle East crisis (except you get a little bit more omniscience.) It was made in 1984 yet I can still remember scenes from it. Scott Glenn's live shots from an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf were so much like Peter Arnett, John Holliman and gang broadcasting from the Al-Rasheed hotel in Baghdad during the first invasion of Iraq. The film doesn't appear to be on DVD which is a shame. This film perfectly captured my fears of nuclear war at this time (I was 18.)
Interesting Study Of Television And Nuclear War
jusp24 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I was 10 when this program aired on HBO in 1984.
Set up like a news broadcast, it covers the rising international tensions between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. It also has a back story of a reporter (Helen Sheaver) trying to get the biggest story of her career...the start of Nuclear War.
Though it moves quickly, I love the fact that they used many real news people in this film. Patrick Watson was a reporter and anchor for the CBC at the time this was filmed. Nancy Dickerson was one of US televisions first female correspondents. All of this adds tremendously to the plot of the film.
I wish HBO would release this on DVD. It's a program for the history books and is a fascinating study of what could happen in television broadcasting if the unthinkable did happen.
Set up like a news broadcast, it covers the rising international tensions between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. It also has a back story of a reporter (Helen Sheaver) trying to get the biggest story of her career...the start of Nuclear War.
Though it moves quickly, I love the fact that they used many real news people in this film. Patrick Watson was a reporter and anchor for the CBC at the time this was filmed. Nancy Dickerson was one of US televisions first female correspondents. All of this adds tremendously to the plot of the film.
I wish HBO would release this on DVD. It's a program for the history books and is a fascinating study of what could happen in television broadcasting if the unthinkable did happen.
scared me at 8
kkubed422 December 2005
As an 8 year old boy, i came home to an empty house from a boy scout meeting. this wasn't an uncommon occurrence, as i grew up in small town middle-America in the 80's my parents were likely at meetings of their own, or working late. As a latch-key kid, my babysitter was often the TV. and when i turned it on, 'countdown to looking glass' was in its' final segment, which must have been commercial free. I remember believing that these were actual events, glued to the screen, until the end when the credits rolled. ever since i have wanted to watch the entire thing, again to see if it is as riveting as it was over 20 years ago, but have been unable to locate it.
best among it's kind
edward25520 June 2003
When it was broadcasted I was surfing through channels and came upon it. I thought it was real! It had me hypnotised into actually believing it. Just like when "War of the Worlds" was initially shown. I would like to buy a copy of this movie but have not found it online. Is it available for purchase?
Classic Nuclear Bomb Theme Flick Part 2
sydneyswesternsuburbs1 July 2016
Director Fred Barzyk has created a classic in Countdown to Looking Glass.
Starring Scott Glenn who has been in other classic flicks, Apocalypse Now 1979, The Right Stuff 1983, Silverado 1985, The Silence of the Lambs 1991, Extreme Justice 1993, The Last Marshal 1999, Training Day 2001, The Bourne Ultimatum 2007 and Into the Grizzly Maze 2015.
Also starring Michael Murphy has has been in other classic flicks, White House Down 2013, Salvador 1986 and two episodes of the classic television series, Combat! 1962-1967.
I enjoyed the television scenes.
If you enjoyed this as much as I did then check out other classic nuclear bomb theme flicks, Special Bulletin 1983 and By Dawn's Early Light 1990.
Starring Scott Glenn who has been in other classic flicks, Apocalypse Now 1979, The Right Stuff 1983, Silverado 1985, The Silence of the Lambs 1991, Extreme Justice 1993, The Last Marshal 1999, Training Day 2001, The Bourne Ultimatum 2007 and Into the Grizzly Maze 2015.
Also starring Michael Murphy has has been in other classic flicks, White House Down 2013, Salvador 1986 and two episodes of the classic television series, Combat! 1962-1967.
I enjoyed the television scenes.
If you enjoyed this as much as I did then check out other classic nuclear bomb theme flicks, Special Bulletin 1983 and By Dawn's Early Light 1990.
Comparable to:
JayPatton8815 November 2019
An excellent portrayal of an impending apocalypse
kellynchad8 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I first watched this presentation on TV in 1984 - I'm thinking it was aired in Canada first before it was shown on HBO in October. At the time I could only appreciate it as a film about nuclear war; some thirty years later, however, I've come to appreciate it as an extraordinary masterwork of television drama.
Patrick Watson, a well-known broadcaster in Canada, does a superb and almost surreal job straddling the line between actor and anchor, bringing a gravitas to Don Tobin to rival any U.S. news anchor on the air in 1983-4. Helen Shaver is perfect as the world-weary Dorian Waldorf, whose one shot at preventing the crisis from escalating and at boosting her profile as a journalist is blown by the tardiness of a would-be "Deep Throat". And then there's Scott Glenn: as the embedded Middle East correspondent Michael Boyle, he predates Arthur Kent's "Scud Stud" persona by a good six years and perfectly demonstrates the gritty glamour of foreign-assignment journalism during the 1980s. Any of them would have fit in on an actual news broadcast: all of them together make the presentation frighteningly realistic and compelling.
The production, though certainly low-budget, was extremely tight and took full advantage of its limitations to lend verisimilitude to the scenario of a TV station's news department. It also took advantage of the format to bring in real players on the national political stage, adding a degree of depth and organic exposition to the presentation that would have made Orson Welles green with envy. The combination of tight production and a commitment to realism presents a different kind of response from that to be felt watching _Threads_ or _The Day After_: instead of the predictable horror of the result of nuclear annihilation, we have instead the gut-churning, half-in- the-mind terror of the unknown but inevitable.
There's the glimmer of hope extinguished halfway through the program as the one piece of data that could provoke cooler heads to prevail is rejected for broadcast. Later, there is the confirmation of a nuclear exchange taking place, without showing, or the need to show, more than a flash of light and a garbled image in static of what might be interpreted as a mushroom cloud. We are so caught up in that point of no return and its implications that any technical shortcomings in its exposition are utterly absolved. The ending of that report, and what follows, fill viewers with a dread and terror that lingers long after the end of the program - most of it created in the imagination of the viewer.
Patrick Watson, a well-known broadcaster in Canada, does a superb and almost surreal job straddling the line between actor and anchor, bringing a gravitas to Don Tobin to rival any U.S. news anchor on the air in 1983-4. Helen Shaver is perfect as the world-weary Dorian Waldorf, whose one shot at preventing the crisis from escalating and at boosting her profile as a journalist is blown by the tardiness of a would-be "Deep Throat". And then there's Scott Glenn: as the embedded Middle East correspondent Michael Boyle, he predates Arthur Kent's "Scud Stud" persona by a good six years and perfectly demonstrates the gritty glamour of foreign-assignment journalism during the 1980s. Any of them would have fit in on an actual news broadcast: all of them together make the presentation frighteningly realistic and compelling.
The production, though certainly low-budget, was extremely tight and took full advantage of its limitations to lend verisimilitude to the scenario of a TV station's news department. It also took advantage of the format to bring in real players on the national political stage, adding a degree of depth and organic exposition to the presentation that would have made Orson Welles green with envy. The combination of tight production and a commitment to realism presents a different kind of response from that to be felt watching _Threads_ or _The Day After_: instead of the predictable horror of the result of nuclear annihilation, we have instead the gut-churning, half-in- the-mind terror of the unknown but inevitable.
There's the glimmer of hope extinguished halfway through the program as the one piece of data that could provoke cooler heads to prevail is rejected for broadcast. Later, there is the confirmation of a nuclear exchange taking place, without showing, or the need to show, more than a flash of light and a garbled image in static of what might be interpreted as a mushroom cloud. We are so caught up in that point of no return and its implications that any technical shortcomings in its exposition are utterly absolved. The ending of that report, and what follows, fill viewers with a dread and terror that lingers long after the end of the program - most of it created in the imagination of the viewer.
Very realistic... perhaps a bit too much (but not in a bad sense)
bellino-angelo201414 February 2024
I am not exactly the target audience for this TV movie since I didn't lived in the Gulf War years (the 1980s) but I saw it only because it has also Scott Glenn in it and since I am his biggest fan I knew I had to watch this. And as you might guess from my score and summary I liked it.
The movie consists of parts with journalists Michael Boyle, Bob Calhoun and Dorian Waldorf (Glenn, Michael Murphy and Helen Shaver) and parts with real journalists who in fact never made a movie after this one that give a chronicle of the Gulf War from the US' view point and while they make it look like a bad war they don't lose their sense of hope (that might have been shared by those who lived that war back in its day).
That was essentially the plot, and while it's only a realistic movie it's still worth a watch because of the acting and also for seeing the TV news reports of those days. If you are a history expert it's highly recommended.
The movie consists of parts with journalists Michael Boyle, Bob Calhoun and Dorian Waldorf (Glenn, Michael Murphy and Helen Shaver) and parts with real journalists who in fact never made a movie after this one that give a chronicle of the Gulf War from the US' view point and while they make it look like a bad war they don't lose their sense of hope (that might have been shared by those who lived that war back in its day).
That was essentially the plot, and while it's only a realistic movie it's still worth a watch because of the acting and also for seeing the TV news reports of those days. If you are a history expert it's highly recommended.
Anyone know if this fine film will be released on DVD?
path50113 September 2006
I think this was one of the most captivating and well thought out "Doomsday" movies ever made...does anyone have any clue as to where I can find this movie in 2006?
I always think of the ending when the aircraft is flying through the myriad of mushroom clouds and think to myself that it would be an awesome spectacle to see something like that in reality. Of course I do not think I would want to experience it first hand, but just imagining the magnitude of it just boggles my mind, especially with the yield of our bombs being a hundred times more than what they were depicted as in this film, and the others, like "The Day After", and "Threads"
My Ex-Wife has the only copy, that I know of, on video tape, and she cannot, or will not part with it...and I was just hoping that HBO or some other entity has had the urge to mass produce this work of art.
I always think of the ending when the aircraft is flying through the myriad of mushroom clouds and think to myself that it would be an awesome spectacle to see something like that in reality. Of course I do not think I would want to experience it first hand, but just imagining the magnitude of it just boggles my mind, especially with the yield of our bombs being a hundred times more than what they were depicted as in this film, and the others, like "The Day After", and "Threads"
My Ex-Wife has the only copy, that I know of, on video tape, and she cannot, or will not part with it...and I was just hoping that HBO or some other entity has had the urge to mass produce this work of art.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
