This TV movie was aired in two parts and I just saw them both. The first half is pretty schlocky, with bad accents running rampant and some bad casting. But the second half, although having that cheapo TV movie feel, isn't half bad. Louis Gossett Jr. as Sadat isn't as bad as it sounds, folks. Aside from the horrible accent, he does at least try and capture the spirit of the man. That extra who was cast as Golda Meir, she looked just like Golda Meir. That was really the most remarkable thing.
7 Reviews
Real-life heroes
Jedikiah17 June 2000
I wasn't sure what I would think about this movie, considering some of the less-than-exemplary movies Louis Gossett has been in over the years, but wow!
Don't get me wrong, this movie starts off slowly, even in the acting department, but Lou takes us through Sadat's history and teaches us about a real-life, flawed, human hero who overcame a whole world of prejudice, somehow, in order to help change our world.
Real life heroes, indeed. :)
Don't get me wrong, this movie starts off slowly, even in the acting department, but Lou takes us through Sadat's history and teaches us about a real-life, flawed, human hero who overcame a whole world of prejudice, somehow, in order to help change our world.
Real life heroes, indeed. :)
What a disaster!
magedfarag17 October 2006
In this film, the names are wrong, the historical facts are wrong, the dates are wrong, the military uniforms are wrong, the medals are wrong, the costumes are wrong, the flags are wrong, the maps are wrong, the props are wrong, the cars are wrong, the locations are wrong... the casting is very poor, with a collection of accents that can only be described as a mockery... this film is simply a disaster... It is an insult to anyone who knows the meaning of the word HISTORY.
If this film proves anything, it surely proves that no research was ever made. For a dramatized history movie, for TV or big screen, the writer and the director should do a bit of homework before they make fools of themselves and of the historical personalities they are presenting.
Maged Farag - Modern Egyptian History scholar
If this film proves anything, it surely proves that no research was ever made. For a dramatized history movie, for TV or big screen, the writer and the director should do a bit of homework before they make fools of themselves and of the historical personalities they are presenting.
Maged Farag - Modern Egyptian History scholar
Inspirational
lewispreston14 May 2008
If you believe in peace, then you'll appreciate this movie. While I'm certain it does contain some inaccuracies, Sadat tells a story of a man who longs for peace amongst a world of mistrust and hatred. However, he never loses sight of a his strong sense of faith toward the betterment of Egypt.
If you are a history teacher who wants to show a great example of a Muslim man who is a hero to peace, then I would recommend showing this movie to your classes. This is a story of inspiration, and I am hopeful the world will have more men with the courage that Anwar Sadat had. He paid the ultimate price, but his example will live on.
If you are a history teacher who wants to show a great example of a Muslim man who is a hero to peace, then I would recommend showing this movie to your classes. This is a story of inspiration, and I am hopeful the world will have more men with the courage that Anwar Sadat had. He paid the ultimate price, but his example will live on.
Misleading and a waste of time
abdelrahman-awad-395-12534013 June 2012
I have read many books and articles from both the Israeli and Arab Sides, but I have never seen a movie in my life with such an extraordinary historical mistakes. In fact they are not just mistakes, they are totally misleading with wrong Information. This movie is a piece of sh%% . I think the movie editor and director were illiterate or drunk! The movie was unprofessional with an extremely poor production . I honestly kept laughing on how ignorant the director was "un-educated" The Movie focused on insignificant details and left the Important things. Wrong costumes , wrong flags , wrong scenes , does any student in any university in the world wears a hate :):):) !!!. I kept laughing on how the director was unprofessional . It is rubbish and a waste of time. The Movie proved only one thing in my mind " Of how big is the miscommunication and misunderstanding between the west and the East specifically the middle east" .
Hollywood "Realism"
Air America19 October 2002
Typically, scenes show ground views from planes traveling over 450 mph which could not be possible. More obvious are the bullet strikes on the surface occurring at a movement-rate of several inches per second. Even with a cyclic rate of 600 rounds per minute, ten strikes per second would cover a distance of ~45 feet between strikes, not the one or two feet shown in the film. Reality does not seem to be a strong point though in action films. Just the gratuitous depiction of the action.
Films are entertainment, not history books
macunaima19704 February 2013
I have to say that I find this small and virtually unknown TV production quite interesting in a variety of ways. First of all, I want to react on the negative responses by some scholars/Historians etc. below.
First of all, film is an interpretation of reality, it is either fictional or it is based on facts, it is not reconstructing reality AS IT WAS (maybe in some Andy Warhol films showing a sleeping man for six hours...). This is a TV production, so they probably used some props from other productions, the costumes, the medals etc. might be not representative for the time, but they are used as symbolic means. And it is funny to have this discussion every time a docu-drama is produced. The interpretation of facts only began with "The Birth of a Nation" by Griffith in 1915 and has not ended with films like "JFK" and "SChindler's List". You can find many pages trashing against historical inaccuracies in these and other films - quite boring as I find. And with the facts - I really don't get this: The film shows the resignment of Nasser, the Jom Kippur War, the peace contract with Israel, and how he died. So what is missing? The secret lovers? (I am joking) Film should give a picture, an imagination, and interpretation of reality. And that really works well here. There are only few films dealing with the near East conflicts of the 60ies to 80ies, and even less where an Arab leader is portrayed as the main protagonist. Something that probably would be impossible in an American production of today. The actors are good (I loved John Rhys-Davies as Nasser, he not only looks like him, but also perfectly copied the manners), the conflicts are well developed, there is a private side to Sadat, the writing is fluid and tight, the music and cinematography are above average TV. And the film gives a very interesting view on the panarabistic tendencies of the 70ies and 80ies, that finally seem to have ended with the Egypt spring in 2011. So I can only recommend this film as a American view on things, as a legit interpretation and dramatization of events. There is also an Egyptian production on Sadat (from 2001): This film may be historically more accurate (I cannot tell), but it is much more boring...
First of all, film is an interpretation of reality, it is either fictional or it is based on facts, it is not reconstructing reality AS IT WAS (maybe in some Andy Warhol films showing a sleeping man for six hours...). This is a TV production, so they probably used some props from other productions, the costumes, the medals etc. might be not representative for the time, but they are used as symbolic means. And it is funny to have this discussion every time a docu-drama is produced. The interpretation of facts only began with "The Birth of a Nation" by Griffith in 1915 and has not ended with films like "JFK" and "SChindler's List". You can find many pages trashing against historical inaccuracies in these and other films - quite boring as I find. And with the facts - I really don't get this: The film shows the resignment of Nasser, the Jom Kippur War, the peace contract with Israel, and how he died. So what is missing? The secret lovers? (I am joking) Film should give a picture, an imagination, and interpretation of reality. And that really works well here. There are only few films dealing with the near East conflicts of the 60ies to 80ies, and even less where an Arab leader is portrayed as the main protagonist. Something that probably would be impossible in an American production of today. The actors are good (I loved John Rhys-Davies as Nasser, he not only looks like him, but also perfectly copied the manners), the conflicts are well developed, there is a private side to Sadat, the writing is fluid and tight, the music and cinematography are above average TV. And the film gives a very interesting view on the panarabistic tendencies of the 70ies and 80ies, that finally seem to have ended with the Egypt spring in 2011. So I can only recommend this film as a American view on things, as a legit interpretation and dramatization of events. There is also an Egyptian production on Sadat (from 2001): This film may be historically more accurate (I cannot tell), but it is much more boring...
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
