Steinesongo Too many fans seem to be blown away

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Benas Mcloughlin Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

joker-scar I read most of the reviews posted here and it seems everyone has made some pretty good points across the board. There is SOOOOOOOOOOOO much to mine as far as story possibilities it is actually staggering. First off, the acting…(1.) I usually just ignore Greg Kinnear… But…I think he did a pretty good job. He did look like JFK, more than I thought was possible if I had to cast someone to play Jack. But…he can't hold a candle to Bruce Greenwood's performance in THIRTEEN DAYS. I remember seeing the Martin Sheen mini-series in 1983 and loved it, but alas, I haven't seen it since then. Sheen is such a fine actor that I'll take it on blind faith he nailed it better than Greg. A lot of JFK's magnetic personality was lacking in the performance, most especially the dry humour. But some of that blame should be heaped onto the writers for not infusing the script with more depth. (2.) Katie Holmes…. I think she has charm and talent. Did she nail Jackie, no…. was it a terrible portrayal, no. She did her job, no better no worse than any other capable actress could have done. (3.) Barry Pepper…I think he is a fine actor and did bring out certain traits of RFK that seemed to ring true. But..again I feel, like some others have already stated, Steven Culp nailed Bobby's personality for me, anyone else is just a copy of a copy. (4.) Enrico Colantoni's portrayal of Hoover left me cold. Far too animated at times. (5.) I like Tom Wilkinson and thought he gave a good performance as the cold and calculated Kennedy elder. Could it have been more sublime…sure. Could there have been a bit more lightness to counter the harsh "Kennedy-touch-football-win-at-any- cost" attitude…of course. Again this is the writers fault for not including these moments for the actor to use. Overall I think the series is a Clift Notes (or Coles Notes if you're Canadian like me) version of the Kennedy era. So much was left out and so much was incorrect. I could go on and on like some others but I won't rehash other reviews. If you know NOTHING about the Kennedy era then it will satisfy, if you do… then there are lots of things that will grate on one's nerves. SIMPLE fixes that did not hinge on spending extra money…just on a BETTER SCRIPT! The production value is pretty good but there is a "TV" quality about it. But that comes down to budget, you can only do so much with a finite amount of money especially when dealing with a by-gone period of history. It simply costs money to change our 21st century landscape to other past eras. So I will let that go and say they did a pretty good job (even though I have no idea of the allotted budget, it is not reported on this site). Having said all that…it is also up to the director and cinematographer to take what they have and make it better with staging and lighting and camera- work and…and… and…… ! The biggest problem are 1. the writing and 2. The directing. Lets deal with the writing…like others have stated, so many things were factually wrong with the entire series. Granted, it is impossible to include everything into an 8 hour time frame when you are dealing with such a big chunk of time and with as many important figures within this story…BUT at least when you cherry pick what you ARE going to use at least get it factually correct. The writers had the benefit of 50 years of other people's tireless investigative work on this subject (literally thousands of books and films out there) and yet it seems they made so many 101 factual mistakes with their script. This topic (the Kennedy's) should have dedicated much more that 8 hours to tell this epic story. I also agree with the few who pointed out the random ping-ponging back and forth in time within a single episode. Over all, just sloppy writing. Both writers come from TV and it shows. The director of 24, Jon Cassar, obviously used them since they worked on that show. A smart producer should have stepped in (at least one of the 14 listed) and kept them as junior writers, paid some extra money, gotten some heavy weight writers in to do the final drafts and made the entire series stronger. Oh… by- the-by; someone should have OK'd the hiring of a history consultant! But I'm sure that money was better spent on all the producers bonus's and perks or whatever. Now on to the biggest problem, the directing. This looks like a TV mini-series. Mr. Cassar could never be accused of being cutting edge or having a cinematic eye. Most of 24's unique look came from the editing. If this production had been shot in the 1980's it would be stellar, but in 2011….it looks okay at best. The entire series is simply a homogenized version of some truly monumental events in that era that demanded more attention to detail and more time to tell the story properly. The saddest part is that when a production company drops the ball on an important subject like this, that it usually takes a dozen years to pass until someone will justify spending money to produce a new version to get it right. At least there are other films and mini- series like THIRTEEN DAYS, JFK, PARKLAND, KENNEDY (1983), etc. to show a more accurate view of whatever slice of the pie they chose to present. As of this writing the same production company is producing a follow up series and I'm sure it will serve up the same old same old. Unlike the first time, I will not be buying that DVD set sight unseen. So to sum it up, this mini series is basically the BEST OF the Kennedy's with a bunch of the hits missing.

andrewkerwincc The Kennedys was a decent show in my opinion. It was an interesting look on history as it didn't just focus on the president, JFK, but gave a look into him and his family which is an interesting dynamic. The acting was fantastic, and the resemblance that Greg Kinnear has to JFK is quite impressive. One complaint is when JFK was assassinated, this show just went along with the basic, somewhat unbelievable, story that was given in the Warren Report. I think it would've been cool is they branched off and put some conspiracy in to spice things up a bit. Other than that this series did a good job of telling the story of the Kennedys.

elena-bar just a little remark:you would think that with millions of Russians that live abroad, especially in the USA & Canada where this TV series was filmed & produced, & the historic reference to the cold war between the USA & USSR, the makers would put in a bit more effort into making the dialogs real & believable. i'm not speaking of the obvious & heavy accent of Khrushev, when he speaks to JFK in the 6th episode, which makes it hard to understand even to a native speaker (like me).i'm referring to the absolutely false translation of JFK's question. he said: you just lost 20 million people in the war. the translation to Russian is: today, only in the first part of the war will be more than double casualties.i mean, com'on! do a serious job, not only an historical research, pay attention to the language!

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.