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.

The Arrow is a compelling story of inventive and persistent people who strive to make an "impossible" airplane. Overcoming setback after setback, a team of Canadian engineers, managers and workers create one of the fastest and most capable fighter-interceptors in the world. This somewhat fictionalized miniseries effectively pulls the viewer into their struggles, much as "From The Earth To The Moon" created a feeling for the efforts behind the U.S. Apollo program. Indeed, the parallels between the American Apollo program and the Canadian Arrow program are subtly drawn several times in the film (many of the engineers who worked on the Arrow went stateside to work on the Saturn V and the Lunar Module). About halfway through the 3-hour film, it becomes apparent that the true challenges to the Arrow project are not engineering or practical problems, but political realities. Unlike the journey to the moon, the goal of building the world's greatest airplane cannot survive the conflicts of personalities, vagaries of public opinion, and budget overruns that plague any huge engineering project.The film effectively depicts the drama of the project. However, even if one overlooks the factual discrepancies, the film suffers from a few flaws: 1) The film is a bit slow in some places, and certainly feels as if it were padded to fill the time for a two-part miniseries. If it had been paced differently, or edited down by 30 minutes or so, it certainly would have flowed better. 2) While most of the characters are based on real people, and indeed seem fleshed-out rather well, the film also includes a composite character, representing all the female workers on the Arrow project. This character seems artificial and out of place; much like the Charlton Heston character in the movie Midway, she seems to be everywhere doing everything, and thus comes across as a caricature. This is not helped by the performance of Sara Botsford, who seems to be playing the role as if she is thinking, "my character is 50% of the population, dammit." 3) Some of the other casting seems odd. For example, Michael Moriarty is a fine actor, but he is singularly unconvincing as Ike.Despite its flaws, this is an entertaining and inspiring film if you enjoy stories of people who strive to achieve.

Very good acting. But I do have a criticism.We are told in the credits that Kate O'Hara (Sarah Botsford) is a compound character created to represent all the women involved in the Arrow program. OK, so explain to me why she's inserted into the very top echelons of the company and the Canadian Government? C'mon.We are often only permitted to witness crucial scenes at a distance because the director feels it more important to feature Kate's face in the foreground.It sure looks like some ardent feminist with clout in the CBC lock-stepped director Don McBrearty into twisting a great movie.

This movie is quite a surprise. It tells a story I had no idea existed. It seems quite amazing it is a true story. It is as dramatic as a fictional story written to be dramatic. I missed the beginning of the movie but based on the description of the DVD I will buy a copy when I get the chance.