mockymur-627-568917
"The Kennedys" was a huge disappointment for me. The script is cartoon-ish and would have worked better with animation rather than established film actors. The accents of the actors were even worse: inconsistent and nothing at all like native Bostonians. Perhaps the jarring fact that "Ethel" is better looking than "Jackie" didn't help, either. I actually met Mrs. Onassis, a few years before her death, and she was still a knockout even then. Katie Holmes was a very poor choice for the role, a Plain Jane trying to pull off an iconic beauty. Greg Kinnear isn't bad as "Jack" but he's way too short. Seeing Holmes looming over him brought back bad memories of another mismatched married couple, namely the "TomKats". Watch this overlong work at your own peril. Giggle at all the right gaffes and you might just like it a little bit more than I did.
yaakov653
Well, I've watched this DVD several times. Being somewhat a student of JFK/RFK I find this movie to lack greatly in the very deep and much noticed involvement of Kenneth O'Donnell. He was very much the backbone of the JFK administration. This movie makes it seem like he wasn't a major part of their work. Which, indeed, he was. Also, I think that, thought hey explored a great deal of the dark side, they sure left out just how much evil the entire Kennedy clan was doing doing. Leaving out Teddy was bad enough, but leaving out the misdeeds of Jackie was making Jack look more of a jerk than he was. Jackie was surely no saint. RFK surely was truly a ruthless man. Helen O'Donnells' book, as with others. makes it seems as though as was rosy with their dealings. As if they were just doing what everyone else was doing in throwing elections. In fact, I believe that the Kennedy election, as Obama's, was a great shame.
mcpasztori
At first, this looked as a thorough portrayal of the Kennedys and their historical impact. Unfortunately, it merely looked – due perhaps also to the History logo during the pilot episode. It disappeared later – and rightly so. Without trying to be political in my assessment, it is obvious that the producers were keen to show the negative side of the Kennedys, giving credit to every infamous rumour about them (both founded and unfounded), including JFK, yet failing to ascribe him/them actions or achievements which influenced later events and human history in general. I was surprised by the total omission of a key moment, i.e. when Allen Dulles, the almighty director of the CIA was deservedly fired by JFK after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, together with CIA deputy director, general Charles P. Cabell. Given the numerous trivial events presented, this omission can hardly be a mere mistake: both Dulles and Cabell bore plenty of grudge against JFK for the destruction of their careers to have a good motive to act against him. Instead, we are led to believe that only the Chicago mobster Sam Giancana may have fostered hatred towards the Kennedy administration. And lo, the mayor of Dallas on 22 November 1963 was Earle Cabell, the general's brother, whilst Allen Dulles was called to be a member (!) of the Warren Commission to "investigate" the murder of the man he had hated most. We are still served the "lone gunman" myth, revived again by Vincent Bugliosi. By the way, folks: I actually read the complete Warren Report and all the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission Hearings, as well as Gerald Posner's Case Closed and Bugliosi's Reclaiming History. Actually, these two authors convinced me – much contrary to their intent – that there was a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. Since the series was not about solving the assassination, they should have omitted the images with Lee Harvey Oswald and portray the event e.g. from the viewpoint of those sitting in the presidential limousine. It is simply ridiculous to see LHO drinking a Coke before the shooting, when he was seen buying one just a couple of minutes after it – only one example of a sloppy work of historical research. The people have had enough biased media-propaganda concerning these painful events. Other crucial occasions which should have been presented to give us a fair depiction of who Jack and Jackie were and what they meant to the world: no mention of their truly triumphant travel to Europe, no real credit for Jackie's total conquest in France, her restoration of the White House to a glory it never knew before and since (although some of it was hinted at in passing), her tour in India and Pakistan, her exceptional language skills, humour, majestic behaviour and personal impact in key moments, including e.g. her speech in Spanish to console the anti-Castro Cubans released from Castro's prisons after the Bay of Pigs. As an Eastern-European citizen who had first-hand experience of what communism really was about, I could not believe that they actually omitted JFK's tremendously inspiring speech in Berlin, his famous comparison between the ancient pride of "civis Romanus sum" (I am a Roman citizen) and the contemporary pride "Ich bin ein Berliner" (I am a citizen of Berlin) – a still resounding message after half a century. My parents were clinging to these words for decades in our part of the world – how can filmmakers simply avoid such a magnificent moment?There is hardly any mention of JFK's increasing support for Martin Luther King, although his backing of the civil rights movement is acknowledged. No mention of his stance against the moral lowliness of U.S. Steel to increase prices during a very delicate time for US economy. JFK, as most great men, had big flaws, but great achievements also, worthy of being remembered. Interestingly, most of the above events were masterfully presented in the "Kennedy" mini-series of 1983.The acting was mostly all right, with Tom Wilkinson doing an excellent job as Joseph P. Kennedy. He is better than E. G. Marshall in the 1983 version, partly because of the differing portrayals of J.P. Kennedy in the two productions. I would almost say that Greg Kinnear was radiant in the role of JFK – if I had not seen and heard (!) Martin Sheen, who had set such a high standard regarding the Boston accent (!), pronunciation, speech pauses, movements and gestures of JFK, that it shall require a superhuman effort from any actor to at least equal his performance. The same goes for the comparison between Katie Holmes and Blair Brown: in the light of Jacqueline Kennedy's media appearances as well as her recently released audio tapes, Brown's performance was far closer to her real personality. John Shea was also far better playing RFK than Barry Pepper, although the latter's effort is laudable. And in 1983 they knew there was a Ted in the family! One last, and indeed painful comparison: do not watch Enrico Colantoni in the role of J. Edgar Hoover if you have seen Vincent Gardenia doing it in 1983! In all honesty, apart from Tom Wilkinson, every actor in this new series fell far behind their peers of 1983. It makes you wonder: did these producers actually watch that one? All in all, if I had not seen the 1983 "Kennedy" series, which focused only upon JFK's time in office, I would consider rating this one with 5. Even so, by comparison, this new one, including historical accuracy, acting and directing, cannot make it higher than 3.5 – and I am being generous, the more so since these producers have shown elsewhere that they can do so much better. As a complete addict of "24", I would rather have preferred Jon Cassar and Joel Surnow to give us another 24 hours of Jack Bauer's fight against injustice than this average melodrama.
