Redundant and unnecessary.

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

I am sure when this play was written in 1883 it was viewed as "revolutionary" because the majority of society did not understand the methodology of science.We assume a century and a half later, mostly because we are communicating over electronic images, that our technology and education will overcome such anti-technology and self-destructive stupidities.Wrong.When you realize the suppression of science that resulted in the lead in the water of Flint Michigan, the destruction of the Challenger space shuttle, or the political lies of the 2003 (non-existent) Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, or the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, the fragility of truth and science becomes terrifying.

As a childhood fan of Steve McQueen, I had been harboring in my heart for many years the hope that I would someday be able to give this up-until-recently "buried" picture a mature review. With this year's Warner Bros Archive Collection release--which amazingly, included this long-obscure title--I was able to do just that.Prior to typing this small review; I took a moment to read the 11 other IMDb user-comments for the movie. They are all quite spot-on in their assessments. I see little that I can add to them for the purpose of simply encouraging newcomers to seek out this McQueen episode. The film is exactly what they say; and if you are fascinated by the story of how the production came into being--as I am--you will be satisfied with the end-product.One place I veer from those reviews is in the labeling of the performances (McQueen's or Bibi Andersson's) as "Oscar deserving". The performances in this film are--I was relieved to see--universally very solid; and the actors more than stand up to the rare, theatrical material and this unusual stage/cinema experiment. But that's as far as I will go.There are many reasons to seek out this small, quiet movie; many reasons to savor every bit of it as it unfolds; and at the end of it all, there are quite a few reasons to enjoy and value the picture. Fans of Ibsen; fans of theater itself; fans of good acting; clever period set design; those interested in political theory; and enthusiasts of 1970s movies in general, will all be pleased by this movie. It is good to know that this type of film was capable of being undertaken in 1978.Of course, it is not a perfect outing. There is some awkwardness. There is some ineffectuality. Its a slow picture in places. And it is not a film that would have shaken the movie industry--or the world--had the studio allowed it to circulate.I'll just tick off some personal pro's and con's:Disliked: the camera spends far too much time on a couple of minor characters--the newspapermen (and their ethical shallowness); the romance between the newspaperman and the daughter is not developed (or later rescinded); and the ending of the movie is perplexing--this is probably the most serious flaw. The film just sort of "trails off". Additionally, the movie is almost **stolen** by a supporting character of no significance - the sea captain!Liked: the 'family dinner' scene; the superb acting of Charles Durning; the sets and costumes; the lighting and feeling for 'small town drama'; the quality of the adaptation in general (speeches and mannerisms were modern enough to not cause any "anachronism'); the sweet title and credits montage (daguerreotype style); the wonderful supporting players; and Steve McQueen, of course.Saving the best for last. Steve McQueen. I am so glad to be able to see him in this performance. It is just as vital to see him in this, as it is to see him in 'Papillon', 'The Reivers' and 'Thomas Crowne'. I watched with pleasure, his characterization. Because this film, as those others are, films he deliberately sought out to challenge himself; films via which he wished to broaden himself and express himself as an actor and a man. That is to say, expressing his values by his choice of roles.It was a treat to see all the familiar McQueen mannerisms shine through--to see his mind at work in the exercise of those mannerisms for each scene; and to observe the respect he pays to his character by keeping his powers under restraint. He discards all traces of the 'movie-star' McQueen here. He is slow and careful; with fine and detailed gesture and expression. Its a respectful performance; he acknowledges the duty he owes to the noble material.Remember that--this being entirely his production--his idea to even embark into these waters--he could have done anything he wanted. But he takes the high road. He worked for scale pay and he works in harness, like any other actor who cares about doing a good job first and foremost. Though his speeches are hoarse and controlled; though his hands shake and his shoulders are stooped--he is as powerful here in his meek, frail doctor's guise as anywhere else in his career; riding a motorcycle or what-have-you. To see him in the public meeting--after having been shouted down by his community--choosing to stride right through them with family in tow, making his way past their despising glares, is a true 'McQueen moment' and should not be missed by any of his fans.Its a heroic role; and McQueen had a heroic role in trying to bring this odd, unwelcome project to the big screen. I am mightily proud to have been able to see it.

Late in his brief career, Steve McQueen, a superstar for his roles in action movies, intensely wanted a chance to demonstrate his abilities in a classical framework. To that end he produced this cinematic version of the Ibsen play about a 19th-Century whistleblower and worked for scale, as did other actors. The script is adapted from the excellent adaptation done by Arthur Miller a half-century ago.The screenplay closely follows the original work and utilizes a minimum of sets with only one exterior shoot. Despite this constriction, this film is truly unforgettable. The acting by McQueen, Richard Dysart, Charles Durning and Bibi Anderson is superb. The cinematography is excellent as well, conveying an almost tactile appreciation of period costumes and interiors of the sort found in Matewan by John Sayles.The examination of the political and emotional whirlwinds described by Ibsen would be topical today.The regrettable part of this enterprise was the inexplicable failure of the studio to release the film in the U.S. DVD versions can be found and used PAL videotape versions are available from the U.K., Australia and other countries that use that format.

Steve McQueen made a career out of playing action roles, and although he played with a certain sense of cerebrality, by 1977 he wanted to prove that he could "act", in the classic sense. He proves beyond a doubt that he can in "An Enemy of The People", which was adapted from a play by Norwegian playwright Heinrik Ibsen.McQueen gives a sublime performance in a film that was never properly released, promoted, or issued on video simply because the filmmakers didn't know what to do with it. It was a complete 360 degree turnaround role for McQueen, it's based on a play that, although famous, isn't well known by people who aren't college students, and they simply didn't know how to market it.All the actors for this film were well chosen and all turn in excellent performances. McQueen himself certainly looks the part of the town doctor with his granny glasses, professor's 3 piece suit, and long shaggy beard.It should be noted that this does appear on PBS from time to time, and videotaped versions of this are floating around. If you get a chance to see it, whether on tv or on someones videotaped version, then by all means do so.