PT 109 (1963)

I first saw this movie as a teenager in the 1970's. I remember it well, and I did enjoy it. As I have grown older and wiser, developed an interest in naval and political history, and served in the navy myself, I have realised the films limitations. On one level it is an exciting war adventure. But it was intended as more than that. The film was intended as a hagiography. Despite its best efforts, it is unable to elevate Kennedy above what he was - a self-centred, hedonistic, arrogant, elitist, who was sure of his own place in history. He used others to advance himself, even if that meant endangering the lives of his own crew, and claiming credit for their survival when credit lay with others.

Despite the bland performance of CLIFF ROBERTSON as JFK, PT 109 manages to be a well-staged WWII adventure photographed in handsome Technicolor with some very fine special effects that make all the battle scenes look very realistic.The best performance in the film is delivered by JAMES GREGORY as the hard-nosed commander of the PT squadron, with a cynical view of the young Kennedy who has had no wartime training until he arrives in the Pacific to put together a crew to work aboard a hastily repaired patrol boat.It's a story of courage and heroism that could have been told in ninety minutes to make the drama more taut. Instead, the film is padded out to a two-hours and twenty-minutes length that makes it feel like another "Mr. Roberts," especially during the long first hour.All of the squadron members are well played by a cast that includes TY HARDIN, GRANT WILLIAMS and ROBERT BLAKE as able seamen who form Kennedy's crew. Touches of wartime humor are present with amusing lines throughout. ("The skipper would mount a tank on a PT boat if he could find one," says a loyal crewman at one point). And when Kennedy is reminded of how idealistic he is when confronting the most unfavorable situations, he replies with a grin: "It must be a character flaw." The only real flaw with the film is its length, which robs it of some much needed tension toward the middle. However, as a film examining the earlier life of JFK's participation as a lieutenant in WWII, it's satisfying enough as a realistic depiction of the events aboard PT 109.Summing up: The basic story of Kennedy's efforts to bring his men back safely from a dangerous mission is effectively portrayed and manages to hold the interest despite being overlong. Worth seeing at least once.

I was 9 when PT109 premiered in 1963 and like all small boys raised on our uncles' and fathers' stories of WWII and Korea, we were eager to see what our president did in the war. It was a rousing tale, especially since one of my uncles in fact was in the Solomon Islands with the Navy about the same time with a maintenance crew, maintaining PTs and some aircraft.As I got older and read the real story of PT109, I was no less impressed with the movie; after all it is just that, a movie. It compresses Kennedy's time on two PTs into one. PT109 juxtaposes some of the events, but it gets the basic story correct. SPOILER: His boat was rammed and sunk with the loss of two of his crewmen. Kennedy did tow an injured sailor to a nearby island and did, with the help of coastwatchers and natives friendly to the allies' cause, get his crew back.The support that the US Navy provided is evident and it is a tale that can be watched by the entire family. I'd recommend it as a way of introducing WWII history to younger children. While combat is shown, it is not graphic. 7of 10 stars.

I came across this film while flipping channels on a Saturday afternoon. It was about 1/4 way through when I realised that it was about JFK. While the film was very well done and enjoyable I found that the role of JFK was simply too good to be true. At every despairing event JFK would simply just roll up his sleeves and declare that he was going to get everyone home safe and sound even under ridiculous circumstances, just because he said so. Basically if he said so, it would happen. Throughout the film this prophesy prevailed which made you wonder was this retrospective propaganda or actual fact. This dilemma would not be of any consequence in a regular film, but when it portrays a sitting President in 1963 a few warning flags should be waved. However now in 2005 following the multiple tragic lives of the Kennedy dynasty, this self belief of being right no matter what the conditions (if true as portrayed in the film) might have proved a genetic flaw that his siblings should well have acknowledged.