Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Stephan Hammond It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

edwagreen Danny Kaye again showed his talents as a brilliant dramatic actor in this 1981 television movie.He plays a Holocaust survivor who has settled in Skokie, Illinois after the war. Skokie has become a predominantly Jewish town and the serenity of the area is threatened with the Nazi garbage threatening to march through the town to cause the reopening of nightmarish wounds, fear and trepidation among the Jewish citizenry of the town.As the spokesman, Kaye conveys those fears but is adamant that the garbage shall not march. His voice is etched with unbelievable feeling as he will do anything in his power to thwart the threatened march.As the Nazi leader leading such a march, George Dzundza is quite effective as Nazi Frank Collin. Filled with hatred, and contempt for humanity, Dzundza also etched an unforgettable character. Of course, the picture belongs to Kaye and he received an Emmy nomination for best actor for it.There is only so much that an afflicted people can take- 1st amendment rights or not.

theowinthrop In Danny Kaye's career (despite what is said on this thread) he made two dramatic and one half dramatic performances in movies. The half dramatic performance was in the film ME AND THE COLONEL, a comedy with Curt Jurgens based on a play by Franz Werfel, JACOBOWSKI UND DER OBERST (JACOBOWSKI AND THE COLONEL) about a Jew and and anti - Semitic Polish officer fleeing Warsaw in 1941 to avoid death by the Nazis. Though it has funny moments in it, the threat of Nazi brutality, and Jurgens slow change to respect and friendship for the Jewish Kaye actually made the story serious. Similarly Kaye's performance in THE MADWOMAN OF CHALLOT was also serious, as his big scenes dealt with the loss of the individual personalities of the different sections of Paris (as shown in their distinct garbage - he is a rag picker) and in his demonic (no better way of describing it) performance as the symbolic defender of the villains of the piece, on trial for their lives.SKOKIE was Kaye's final movie (not his last appearance on television). It was a major performance - this time in center stage and no clowning involved. It returned to the subject matter of JACOBOWSKI, but brought it up to date.It was based on a notorious incident of the late 1970s in Illinois. A resurgence of the American Nazi Party decided to have a march, and for added interest (as well as putting salt on wounds) it was marching not in Chicago but in a quiet area near the city called Skokie, which was where a large number of Jews - many European survivors and refugees of the Holacaust - lived. The Jews in the community were angered by this move, and fought it. But, after court action, the march was allowed. However, when the Nazis came to march they found hundreds of Jews on all sides of the street glaring at them. They completed the march, but the Nazis were thoroughly unnerved by the experience.Kaye is one of the survivors of the original Nazis and their activities in the 1940s. He is absolutely opposed to this march - he becomes the most outspoken opponent of it. He knows what quiet acquiescence to this garbage means - the Jews in Europe were quiet, too quiet, and it cost six million lives. The pressures of the re-occurrence hits his family, as his wife (Kim Hunter) also a survivor, begins collapsing under the strain - she's reliving the nightmare all over again. She feels it can happen here, and Kaye is determined that it shall not.George Dzunga is the local Nazi leader, who carefully planned the choice of Skokie to give the maximum hurt to the Jews he could. He also chooses the attorneys of the American Civil Liberties Union to represent his "fight for freedom of speech" argument. And to add icing to his evil, he chooses John Rubenstein, a Jewish - American attorney at the A.C.L.U. to be his attorney. Rubenstein and his mentor Eli Wallach are confronting the situation, but determined to do what their organization sees as it's role - safeguard the Bill of Rights against all attacks. And, as I said at the start of this review, they do win the court victory, but the Nazis find the victory more unsettling than they expected.The film also demonstrated something that is not usually discussed when dealing with the A.C.L.U. That organization always pushes the envelope a bit to make it's point about our rights - and sometimes goes beyond common sense. In a mostly secular America, some Christmas crèches don't have to be taken away because they violate church and state (if the A.C.L.U. actually believes in separation on that issue, why not demand that Christmas be returned to a solely Christian holiday rather than allow the courts and government buildings being closed - obviously their membership benefit by the holiday as well - I think they call that hypocrisy?). Inevitably when you are defending "rights" you are going to be tramping on people's toes. Most of us don't mind when it is an unpopular or static group (like a business who has some hiring policy that is questionable), but if you see that a large minority is being insulted by a "rights" issue the A.C.L.U. is involved in, you can see why that organization really needs to reevaluate what it is doing. But it won't.They were defending hate speech here - anti - Semitic material that Hitler would have been proud of. The A.C.L.U. would have said that our right to free speech is universal. But if that is true, the speech is unlimited - and I don't feel that that was the original intention. If the Skokie marchers had been met by thousands of hidden supporters, who were armed and went on a rampage of killing Jews afterward, the fine idea of defending such speech would have been meaningless. And just because it did not happen, does not mean that it can't.The film tackled this as well. Both Rubenstein and Eli Wallach face a double whammy in the course of the story. Both are Jews, and neither really love their client. It's their duty to do what they do for the Bill of Rights. But then the A.C.L.U. coffers suffered. Many Jews had been contributors until Skokie happened - now they felt obliged not to because it was taking a "pro-Nazi" stand. The A.C.L.U. would suffer financially for years for this blunder. Then the Skokie residence countered by a demand to know if the A.C.L.U. was denying the Holacaust occurred (as the Nazis claimed). Although they win the case, they realize they have lost tremendous credibility with former supporters.SKOKIE was a pretty fine movie - and well worth watching. It also leaves the issue of whether Free Speech is unlimited or not open even as the film ends.

AlanSKaufman One day in November 1980 my mother phoned my Chicago office. She had read a newspaper report about a call for TV movie extras being held that evening at a Skokie auditorium. The proposed film, titled Skokie, would detail the late 1970's effort by the Chicago suburb to prevent a march in its large Jewish community by a neo-Nazi group. Although I then lived in Skokie, I had only heard about the commotion through the media.I fantasized about starring in a movie despite having no acting experience other than grade school plays. Having accumulated much vacation time I was able to take off from work. So I attended the call not knowing what exactly to expect. The long lines moved rather quickly. The interview itself was short, and people were preferred who simply could fit and dress themselves for the part. For example, in real life I was a lawyer, so they assigned me to a court room scene where I played a second assistant attorney.Extras had no speaking role, but you can see me sitting near Eli Wallach for about 10 minutes, which shoot took two days at a courthouse in Evanston, Illinois. Between takes, extras observed the intricate technical proceedings and got to chat with many of the cast and crew on the set. Makeup was frequently applied to our faces covering up five o'clock shadow or sweat. We were fed a light breakfast and full lunch, but dinner hour came and went. Certain actors kept forgetting their lines, tempers flared as the evening wore on. At the end of the first day as we were reminded to wear the same clothes for the next day's finish, one man jokingly asked if we could at least change our underwear.Several of us extras, especially those who were prompt and didn't complain about the long schedules, were asked to be in additional scenes. I appeared in two town meeting sequences filmed in a Skokie synagogue, and in a political rally where we sang patriotically in front of the actual Skokie village hall. Skokie's mayor visited us and greeted the actor portraying him, Ed Flanders, later Dr. Westphall of St. Elsewhere. Many extras were in fact concentration camp survivors living in Skokie. There was an authentic intensity underlying the crowd scenes so the "acting" seemed for real.When I first viewed the movie, telecast on CBS in 1981, I focused strictly on searching for myself. Only mom recognized me at every shot even catching one I missed. My other family and friends concentrated on the story. Using a Betamax I taped the program, eventually putting it away with my other mementos. In 2003, while browsing a video store, I discovered the Skokie DVD and snatched the two shelf copies. I found the disc quality superb and located every semblance of my younger self. In comparison I played the tape and was shocked at how badly it had deteriorated. DVDs are hoped to have a longer life.Of course the movie Skokie has its flaws. But in retrospect the melodramatic moments seem very true. The film illustrates the dangers to yourself when the rights of others are assaulted. Experiencing Skokie, I felt aware. Watching Skokie, so might you.

Aleona If you are a lawyer or a judge that is interested in a documentary movie that talks about a case and what happened, this you will like Skokie. There really isn't any great acting in it, in fact a lot of the dialogue of Kaye is cheesy and overly dramaiszed. Most roles are one dimensional and overplayed, but the director did convey the message of the trial and the consequences that followed.If you need to do a report on the Skokie trial, and you want your research to be somewhat entertaining then this movie may serve you a very good purpose, other than that I wouldn't recommend it.