Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Myron Clemons A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

murray-b-647-995040 Almost nothing about this story agrees with the facts.The most pertinent of those are public knowledge and the cabinet minutes are posted athttp://www.international.gc.ca/ department/history-histoire/dcer/ details-en.asp?intRefid=8169Diefenbaker's government was told the cost of the aircraft would be nearly $10 million each,"The R.C.A.F. now had nine all-weather squadrons and the present programme called for their re-equipment with the CF-105, requiring a production order of 169 in number. These, together with aircraft recovered from the development and pre-production order for 37, would provide sufficient aircraft for nine squadrons. The total cost would be $2 billion spread from 1959-60 to 1963-64." (This compared to $2 million for a Voodoo or $3.75 million for a Delta Dart.) The military recommended cancelling the program,"Finally, the cost of the CF-105 programme as a whole was now of such a magnitude that the Chiefs of Staff felt that, to meet the modest requirement of manned aircraft presently considered advisable, it would be more economical to procure a fully developed interceptor of comparable performance in the U.S." Note that the government was told the Arrow was "comparable" to other aircraft and not that it could fly higher, faster, or further than anything else.The film is a little piece of political propaganda and deserves a negative score for being less than useless but the choices are limited to positive values. It actually deserves something closer to -7 out of 10.

djvogt I don't know any of the actual history, so can't comment on that but I was completely hooked after the first few minutes of this movie. This is one of the few movies I've seen that made me interested enough in the subject matter to want to learn more about the real Arrow. This is a very serious movie with lots of technical information but is fascinating. It is also interesting because the development of the Arrow is completely unknown to most people, even people interested in planes and aerospace. Even though it focuses on technology, the movie is a character study in how the individuals developing the plane are affected by political and management decisions they have no part of. Note to Ackroyd comedy fans, this is not a comedy and although this may be some of the best acting Ackroyd has done this is definitely not his most sympathetic character.

rpickett In 1959 Canada cancelled the production of the Arrow. It was an Airplane 20 years ahead of it's time. The 7 flyable Arrows were cut up for scrap. Dan Ackroyd does a terrific job portraying the man behind the design and construction of the "plane that never was". The movie tracks the team that designed the Arrow and delves into the many personalities from designers to production workers who worked on this project. The movie also gives historical film clips of the actual test flights of the aircraft as it was being tested. These in themselves are worth the price of the movie. Everyone should see this movie, not only for the quality production but also for it's historical significance. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie.

gmr-4 in having a crack at the C.B.C. out of Windsor. I watch it all the time.*** POSSIBLE SPOILERS ***THE ARROW is based upon a story of which I was ignorant, no aviation expert, but it has inspired further study. Knowing something of Canadian history, I too find the anti-Progressive-Conservative angle in THE ARROW a bit much. They could have shown something of the Government point of view in the recession of 1958-9, and the serious doubts emerging about Canada's fiscal ability to build, deploy, and maintain such an armada. Also, the knock-out redhead engineeress played by Botsford does seem to find her way into a awful lot of prominent places in scenes, a function more of the gender of one of the co-producers than any weight of female contribution to the project. Ackroyd does fine work, but how close to Gordon that rendering is . . . cannot say. I agree with another writer that Eisenhower is not done well at all, and certainly the Canadian stable of actors could have provided a man better suited if less well known. I have it on decent authority that Chamberlin was not a quirky as depicted, and were he alive in 1997 he would be offended. Oh yes: the is NO WAY the Arrow could have reached the edge of space.All said, however, I found THE ARROW genuinely moving in places, and understand the mythic proportion it has come to occupy in Canadian history and that people's sense of national accomplishment as well as the bitterness from the airplane's cancellation in subsequent decades. It is good that someone put it on film.