Develiker terrible... so disappointed.

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

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

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

MisterWhiplash Most people who come to Best of Enemies knows what the state of news media coverage is, especially in the realm of cable news. It's been bad for a long time (there's a very brief excerpt of the time when Jon Stewart called out Crossfire for the very problems that can be seem sprouting up in the film in the end credits). But what's so great about Best of Enemies is how you see that the groundwork laid at the beginning for what's been twisted into the barking (less talking) heads in coverage of the daily events (let alone political conventions) is seen as relatively cordial and sophisticated. Sure, William F. Buckley Jr and Gore Vidal might not be everyone's idea of a good time with a glass of beer (though that depends on what class system rank you're in), but, perhaps except for one major outburst from Buckley - which haunted him for years (or he just became obsessed with it like a cry-baby, you decide) - they were so evenly matched as far as their scope of intellectual prowess that it boggles the mind.Over the course of Best of Enemies we get to see what these two men were like, before the debates in 1968 and then after, and there's this monumental point of view (probably totally correct) that the directors give which is that TV changed things for the public so much that two people arguing about this or that could change things, like concretely in people's minds. But past it being of interest in a sociological or political science interest is the emphasis that these two men *really* did not like one another. Perhaps there was some unspoken level of respect, that sort of look of 'hey, let's give them a show' (and apparently after one of the tenser debates, Buckley leaned over and almost paid a compliment that that's what they did). But watching the scenes here I can't imagine anyone walking away thinking it was just an act, and yet at the same time I think there was an element of the theatrical; one of the revelations is that Vidal tested some of his retorts to Buckley on staffers or crew before filming.The documentary may be borderline on too much context in a way - the talking heads from (the late) Christopher Hitchens and Dick Cavett and Buckley's biographer shine some light on certain aspects of their personalities (how personally Buckley took things, and how Vidal kept things under lock and key what he showed on his face). It can even be said there isn't quite enough of the debates in the film, and that's the one thing keeping it from being a 10 out of 10. But sometimes the best movies are never long enough, and this is a case where I could watch another 30 to 60 minutes of this story, especially as it's set in the tumultuous time of 1968 at Republican and Democratic conventions (the latter being when Chicago went into a series of riots). As long as the filmmakers keep the focus on these two men looking at each other and sniping in sardonic and totally dead-serious ways, the film works wonders. And you also get thrown into the mood of the period through music that almost has the buzz of technology, of TV electronic-waves and such.If the medium is/was the message, then having two men argue at a time when there were only three channels with ABC hosting it had to do something different to compete with Cronkite and the like (and as one person says in the doc, argument is sugar ans we are the flies) made the message clear: conflict and drama makes for much more enticing (and perhaps simply easier) viewing than watching straight, down-the-middle factual news reporting. Who needs the facts when you got the paragon of the Conservative right (Buckley, by the way, has that sort of smile and grin that is both charming and kind of creepy) and of the intellectual, hardcore left (Vidal, with his books making him like an unofficial if sometimes controversial arbiter of history). Check it out - and ponder if either of these men could last a minute on Fox news or even CNN.

ThatDoesntMatter As a documentary, this fails on several levels.First, for non-Americans, or even for Americans under 40, there is far too little background given to enjoy this documentary. Am I supposed to google the facts before I watch it? Maybe this documentary was made with a limited target audience in mind. I thought it a pity, I would have liked to have been informed about the politics of the time and the main characters at the beginning of the film, not guess while watching until the last third. Every American party has red white and blue, how does that help? ;-) Just sayin'...I found myself thinking I'd rather watch the original debates, the snippets we were given left me highly dissatisfied, the voice-overs from the respective autobiographical accounts could have been dealt with more satisfactorily as well, e.g. a transparent picture of the person in a corner of the frame instead of the name in letters.As a portrayal of how it came about and the effect it had I suppose it kind of works, but even that was sketchily done, it all became tangled and mixed up and nothing was really revealed and nothing really gelled.For me, it went on too long, it made too much of something that was not the real issue (Buckley losing his cool), and spent too little time putting the spotlight on reasons and motivations - it was like typical TV then and now, a superficial look on a show event. The news they have to sell, and what is news and what isn't is decided by market shares. Oh shock horror who knew...Two narcissistic men playing verbal tennis, ad hominems galore, what has changed? ;-) I've watched debates that managed without it. Watching this documentary does not inform me enough to have any kind of insight into either of those men. Conjectures was all I got, plus bits of original material. If an annoyed wish to be rather watching or reading the original was the objective of the producers then they succeeded.As documentaries go, a rather frustrating offering.

swj1984 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.

Miles-10 In 1968, eighty percent of American television viewers watched the national presidential nominating conventions. As we watched the Chicago Democratic Convention, we saw what a federal commission later called a "police riot"–a horrific skull-cracking rampage. The decade was a time of economic boom, civil rights struggle, assassinations, riots, disaffected youth, rock 'n' roll, changing sexual mores, escalating protests against an escalating yet undeclared war (the Democratic Party's finger prints were on the war more than the Republicans—hence the demonstrations in Chicago), new welfare programs, and dazzling technological changes. (The national conventions were broadcast, for the first time, entirely in color in 1968.) Even though I watched the conventions, I didn't watch much of ABC, which only covered the conventions during prime time, while NBC and CBS covered the conventions from gavel-to-gavel—unheard of today except maybe on C-SPAN. So I missed seeing the subject of this documentary, the epic ten-round debate between Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley, Jr., but I sure heard about it. After the round in which Vidal called Buckley a "crypto-Nazi" and Buckley called Vidal a "queer" and added "I'll sock you in the god-damned face," it was water-cooler conversation everywhere in America the next day. Even those like me who had not seen it, understood how shocking it was. According to this documentary, the network suits turned to each other after it happened and asked, "Can they say that on television?" And someone told them, "They just did—live." Maybe if ABC had not been the lowest-rated commercial network, it might not have been so eager to have Vidal and Buckley comment/debate at the conventions. That, of course, assumes that ABC realized that they would not do much commentary and that there would be no rules in their debate. The two men had a great deal in common in terms of background and intellect (both were masterful word-smiths), but they hated each other politically and personally with a burning passion that makes the title of this film so apt.Their "debate" got personal fast as they ripped into each other mercilessly. It was only surprising that they lasted so long before the sharpest knives came out. At the heart was the battle between the liberal and conservative world views that each man represented. Vidal was an outspoken advocate of libertine-ism and central planning, the almost contradictory shibboleths of modern liberalism, and also a successful writer who wrote a number of good novels, plays and screenplays, but his most recent and provocative novel, in 1968, was "Myra Breckinridge," a satirical romp about trans-sexuality (very progressive, you might think) and also a celebration of homosexual rape (Yikes! You might think), but it was a different time, and both sexual liberation and rape were lumped together, according to Vidal's champions, as signs of forward thinking and, according to critics, as signs of moral decay. Buckley was the editor of "National Review", a conservative magazine that still thrives despite his passing. Both men were scions of social upstarts who became successful, Buckley's family in oil and Vidal's family in politics. Both had good educations, although, Vidal had not gone to college. They both spoke with patrician accents that, as one of the film's commentators, linguist John McWhorter, opines, would seem pompous and uncaring to listeners today. (Indeed, Kelsey Grammar, of "Frazier" fame, voices the writings of Buckley and John Lithgow, of "Third Rock from the Sun", voices those of Vidal in this film.) Vidal won the "debate" based purely on the fact that, though each man strove to get under the other's skin, it was Buckley who finally lost his cool. What got to him was the odious conceit that conservatives may be linked to fascism. Buckley had heard this slur his whole career, and was visibly infuriated by it, but pushing that button would have been a lower trick than it was if Vidal had not genuinely believed that there was truth in it. (The persistence of this myth explains the peculiar surprise of one of Buckley's liberal biographers when he learned that Buckley, otherwise unsurprisingly, had once fired a Nazi that he found to be part of his magazine's sales force.) Buckley was ashamed of his outburst in the debate for the rest of his life. Vidal gloated over it for the rest of his. I wonder if one is sadder than the other.The filmmakers, Robert Gordon and Morgan Neville, make some attempt to be fair to both sides but are, perhaps, unfair to both and to history as well. For example, they present a recounting of Vidal's frequent viewing of the debate tapes in his old age while showing us a scene from the movie "Sunset Boulevard" (about a forgotten movie star who pathetically watches herself in old movies night after night). If there is a flaw in the conclusion drawn for us by the film—that the vitriol of the Buckley-Vidal debate was not only a harbinger of, but may even have caused today's cable news and internet cat-fighting—it might be that the film overly sentimentalizes the homogeneous, middle-of-the-road political viewpoint shared by most network newsreaders and commentators during the sixties. This artificial sameness presided over and callously ignored a turbulent, ongoing cultural and political split in the country as if ignoring it—or at best reporting only the ripples on the surface that could not be ignored—would make it go away. For all any of us knew, we might have blown off some of our more destructive steam if there had been alternative media back then. The confrontation between Vidal and Buckley on national television in 1968 was set against what was going on in the streets at that time. They were expressing the frustrations of adherents of both of their ideologies, frustrations that were just under the surface but not being articulated on the nightly news.