It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

A fascinating and in depth look and the Buckley-Vidal debates and the precursors to the world we find ourselves in today. More interesting since I lived through this period and watched these debates in real time. We find ourselves in a world today not much different than the world of 1968 on race, economic inequality,far right and far left politics and down in the mud politics that doesn't debate issues but personal demagoguery. Buckley ran for mayor of NYC and discovered the angry white man as his main constituency, sound familiar Donald J. Trump.

A documentary on the series of televised debates in 1968 between liberal Gore Vidal and conservative William F. Buckley.I am a bit confused by the use of John Lithgow and Kelsey Grammar for voices, but I suppose if you have to get anyone, you may as well get them. I don't know about Lithgow, but Grammar is a well-known conservative, so he is probably a fan of Buckley.The film addresses homosexuality indirectly and I find it interesting that for the most part Vidal's sexuality is not a concern. It did not seem to hold him back. The film even briefly addresses Buckley's alleged homosexuality, which surprised me. Was he really gay as some have alleged, or was it the accent? (I suppose if we take his misogynist miniskirt comment at face value, he was straight!) According to the film, 1968 was the solidification of "identity politics" and the modern parties. I suppose that is true in many ways. More often people point to 1980, as this is when the religious aspects became so much bigger. With Nixon, the conservative party still had a number of things about it that today might be considered liberal. But if not 1980, then 1968 probably really did make a difference.

Considered a Pivotal Political TV Event that immediately and irreversibly Changed the way Television covered Controversy with Confrontation. Specifically Politics, Social Studies, and National Philosophical Divides.William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal, two Popular and Influential Voices with Polarizing Opinions on just about everything, were Hired by ABC News to Flavor Their 1968 Convention Coverage to Opine on the "State of the Nation" and Connect it to the Republican/Democratic National Conventions.It was New, Captivating, and Exciting Live Programming. What wasn't known at the Time was just how much..."The Whole World is Watching"...Slogan would have Resonated even without this Breakthrough Televised Event, because on the Streets of Chicago and Bleeding onto the Convention Floor, the Massive Demonstration by Anti-War Protesters became a Spontaneous and Iconic Video Record of a Nation seemingly in a Nuclear Meltdown.It is not surprising the 9th Airing of the 10 Scheduled "Debates" that was Broadcast just after the Aforementioned Police-Demonstrators Confrontation, would Result in a Meltdown of its own. Gore Vidal called Buckley a "Crypto or Neo Nazi" and Buckley, Outraged, and on Live TV shouted..."Listen you Queer, stop calling me a Nazi or I'll punch you in the Goddam face..."The Documentary Centers around those Personal Attacks and the Ramifications and Confrontations between the Two that continued till "Death Put Them Apart." But it also Contains Footage Before and After and in a Limited Contextual Framework, the State of the Country on the" Left" and the "Right" at the Time.Highly Recommended.Note…The complete footage of all 10 Televised Debates is on YouTube.

I watched this at the Adelaide Film Festival after the Chomsky doomsday doco was sold-out, and I was more than pleasantly surprised at this brilliant production; its incredible wit, resonance and poignancy. I must admit I have not had the opportunity to read the works of Gore Vidal or William F. Buckley (though now I intend to) - prior to watching the film I was aware of Vidal by his reputation as the unabashed gladiator of sexual liberation in an otherwise fiercely conservative social landscape. What surprised me most about the film (as all good films tend to do) is that my preconceptions of the how I would receive Vidal and Buckley during the debates and their personalities were almost turned on their head by the film's end. In the backdrop to the intellectual combat in ABC's studios was one of America's most tumultuous periods; the height of the civil rights movement, violent protests in response to the unpopular occupation of Vietnam and of police state repression. It's disconcerting to see how political discourse, human rights and public institutions of the US have actually stagnated if not regressed since the 1960's. Consider the incendiary milieu that exists in the United States today and the #blacklivesmatter movement. For example, as were in 1968, race riots in Baltimore and evidence of flagrant police brutality in Chicago. What I think "Best of Enemies" illuminates is how, no matter the weight of the intellect of both sides of the argument, pride and human nature will general ensure it devolves into the most primal and puerile name- calling. This is actually what most people want to see. Undoubtedly, Vidal and Buckley were both incredibly strong-willed men and while the production is selective is only focusing on the sledging, it signifies that it was exactly this dynamic that caused the ABC to commission these debates – visceral personal conflict. The major thematic premise of the film illustrates that in the modern world of endless freedom of choice in technology – we have become more disparate. The inception of cable, the internet, social media and hand-held wireless devices have culminated in confined and specific interests and experiences. A world of distracted individuals bound by endless sources of entertainment. Political discourse, for instance, is seemingly ubiquitous but in reality drowned in a sea of radicalism, self-righteousness, triviality and populism. In Buckley and Vidal's era, it seems one at least had to be familiar with the opposing argument to counter it. In contemporary punditry it seems experts are well-versed in their own ideology while seemingly never having been exposed to any context or counter-argument. On a personal level, the documentary seems to acknowledge that Vidal (in interviewing his biographer) was unable to extricate himself from the rivalry long after it seems Buckley had, even though Buckley remained tormented by his on-air explosion. This was interesting considering it was Buckley who shattered his reputation as the ice-cool velvet sledgehammer while Vidal was generally considered victorious, so to speak, in the debates. In fact, it was Buckley that struck me as the more moderate of the two polemicists, perhaps out of some humility later in his life where he could see the wreckage that had become of the conservative movement he had founded. Vidal's animosity towards Buckley is portrayed as intensifying in the latter stages of his life, which seems sad and almost irrational. Unexplored in this feature are the rumours that Buckley had threatened to disclose damaging information about Vidal's private life (the spectre of which has surfaced courtesy of Vidal's disenfranchised family members since his death). Vidal could either be construed as somewhat petulant or paranoid. Nevertheless, the documentary itself is riveting and thought-provoking and charming with a sense of pathos.