Missle of october was it really so bad?

to be entirely honest it is not that easy to make any sort of reenactment piece and not have it look cheesy. There's a lot of good war movies out there, and in a war those could be considered re enactments, but they usually focus around a story or idea that is sprinkled with fact, and then fill in a larg number of gaps. Even if we look at great films like Culloden and the Thin Blue line we still feel that there is an element of cheesyness to them. Mainly this has to do with money, but part of it is because they wanted to re enact something, versus just making a fictional narrative around a particular even that happened. Culloden at points was unable to hide the blatantly obvious fact that they did not have as many actors as there were actuall ment that were involved in the battle. And it is hard to argue that there were not points when the thin blue line was very reminiscent of a bad episode of rescue 911. Sure, missles of october came off as well produced as some of the porn that was being produced during the time, but can anyone really expect anything more from a tv movie that was made during the seventies. In all reality, missles of october wasn't much worse than the multi-million dollar movie thirteen days starring kevin kostner (a movie telling the same story)