Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Aiden Melton The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

The Couchpotatoes I read a lot of reviews about this story being the truth or not and honestly it doesn't matter because you will never know what really happened. To me Killing Kennedy isn't a bad movie even though there are better movies made about this subject. But giving the movie such low ratings sometimes is just ridiculous. I wonder if those people that rate it with one star watch a lot of movies? Because there are thousands worse movies than Killing Kennedy. To me it could have been better if they had another cast. Rob Lowe isn't a brilliant actor and he will never be. He's just average. Will Rothhaar as Lee Harvey Oswald did a better job as well as his wife. The story is easy to follow, also because almost everybody on this planet knows the story. You know what will happen so there are no elements of surprises or so. All in all the movie is worth a watch, even if you have another conspiracy theory.

Jazzie-too Old adage: "Less is more" just didn't work here. Casting Rob Lowe as Kennedy is OK. Looks were right on! Kennedy's Bostonian accent was a little weak, but still OK enough. And his eyes were not the gorgeous blue of Rob Lowe, but rather a greenish, dull gray. And JFK's back aliments were barely addressed with a few needles and syringes and pills. Maybe that was enough. Lowe is very presidential. Miss the West Wing! What I did not like at all was the actress given the role of Jackie. Everything about her was a miss. Her looks, her manner of speech, her tone, her movement, her dress. Her hair! Her looks bothered me the most. There was nothing chic or sophisticated. I strongly feel Jackie's demure looks were part of her everyday look and personality. And I don't recall any portrayals of the wonderful renovations Jackie brought to the White House. William Devane was probably the best impersonator of Kennedy. But he would look too old now. And for Bobby, I've seen excellent portrayals of him, but not here. The guy did not have the stature or charisma. Then there's LHOswald! OMGosh! they needed to mess that guys hair up a bit and get the color right. His face needed a beat-down. They just needed someone else! Then there's the rush to produce this in a very short period of time and make it a less than 90 minute film. Absurd! For sure they're going to be bypassing a lot. Like they didn't know for the last 10 years that the fiftieth anniversary was coming up in 2013! The story just was not adequate. Bill O'Reilly just needed to sell another book! And this one should have just stayed on the shelf!

thirdsqurl Reviews of a historical film can break down into its accuracy and the quality of the production. This movie does fine on both counts. Many will wish to dismiss the movie's narrative as it portrays Oswald as the lone assassin driven by his personal demons and failures. These viewers would rather see a Costner style conspiracy film with grand villains. I myself believed in the multiple shooter theory for many years, and still have a library of conspiracy books larger than any of the reviewers you are likely see read here, but over time it became clear that Oswald did indeed act alone. To believe otherwise is to credit our government with a competency that history proves is utterly lacking.For the quality of the film, Rob Lowe has captured JFK perfectly. It's sad he didn't win an award for his performance. The talented cast of supporting characters all play well to the known facts, a rare event in the Hollywood culture. The production values, no doubt limited by the film's budget, are adequate for the purpose, and the time period has been recreated well enough not to be distracting.As a devoted fan of President Kennedy and having seen every Kennedy film, I would place this one above average, and a good basic education for those unfamiliar with the story.

scrabo39-143-16850 An above reviewer wrote this...' I didn't know Oswald had shot at a retired Army General or murdered a policeman' ! ( or words to that effect)H didn't !! That's why propaganda tripe like this has to be outed for what it is. The rifle used to shoot at the General was a high powered one, not the 1941 rusty Italian job Oswald had. Further, Two eye witnesses to this shooting said they saw Two men running away, neither of which fitted Oswalds description. They got into separate cars and drove away. Oswald couldn't drive. The bullet recovered from the shooting could not possibly have been fired by Oswalds rifle.The murder of Officer Tippet.......at the time of his brutal murder Oswald was more than a mile away waiting on a bus, taking him in the opposite direction. The 4 rounds recovered at the scene of the murder ( and please remember, revolvers do not eject rounds), could not be matched to Oswalds revolver !That this awful portrayal of the facts can still be getting made, is a sad reflection on the screenwriters of Hollywood. Further....I thought, until now, Brave Heart was the biggest rewriting of history I had ever had the misfortune to witness. Sadly this debacle outdoes even that !Absolute dire fare. I only hope you do not believe all you see in films/movies !