source: Killing Kennedy

The casting is the issue here. The worst thing about this movie is Ginnifer Goodwin as Jackie. She is too plump and rounded. Jackie is famous for being super thin even by today's standards. Ginnifer with her darling smile is also too sweet and cuddly for the elegant sophisticated Jackie. Even Katie Holmes looked more like her in the recent miniseries. Rob Lowe looks like JFK from certain angles but he comes across as a bit to slimy. Not a good choice. The actor Will Rothaar playing Lee Harvey is better he is watchable but a bit too handsome for Lee Harvey. Michelle Trachtenberg is prettier here than on Gossip Girl - the 60s get up suits her. But Marina was actually quite attractive when young so she is okay. As far as the story goes, this is the lone gunman theory. No Oliver Stone conspiracy version here. It shows a lot of detail from Lee Harvey Oswald's point of view and his family's reaction. Not so often shown in other versions. After watching this movie I actually feel more convinced he couldn't have acted alone even though that probably wasn't the intention. It's still fascinating to watch no matter how many times they do it but the casting here is just off.

I really don't get the point of this film except to enter the possibility that there are still some desperate to cling to the single-gunman-theory and wished to pontificate that view onto others. It is because this films adheres to this blatant subscription on this singular viewpoint, that I felt it difficult to attest to any of the remaining material as accurate. We all knew Oswald was a loner with unfounded/misguided political beliefs, a sociopath, and also had delusions of his importance and relevance to the KGB and the FBI. All of this is presented in a pure milk-toast and Hallmark Channel restraint. its about as rated-G as one could get despite the actual visceral and violent nature of his deeds and the tragedy in general. Kennedy get painted as womanizer ( we all knew that) but there's no real connection to this story as to why that was important to tell; one of his GF's being a mob wife, but was it suggested that there might be a mob-connection to his death?No. Kennedy goes rogue against his cabinet and solves the Cuban missile crisis, but the story fails to illuminate anything new or offer a motivational angle. In fact there is no offering of any possible scenario or conspiracy-theory even hinted as an accompanying adjunct to the assassination, no mention of Zapruder, the grassy knoll, deaths of witnesses, cover-up, evidence file lock-up, etc nothing. Its all Oswald. I don't want to pick on any one person so I will write that the acting and production values are all on the uninspired side. I fail to comprehend any probative purpose behind this film.

Just saw this film last night with my wife. We agreed that it went along very much with the book, and thus, with the facts of the case--as much as they could present in a two-hour (minus commercials) movie. A great, detailed, fact-filled book such as Case Closed by Gerald Posner, would take more time on film than one of Ken Burns' films. I kept thinking--"Oh, they didn't put in this activity", or "They omitted this element of the story." What we saw were some family images of John Kennedy and his wife, along with Bobby Kennedy. I thought the two brief scenes of Bobby being telephoned about the shooting were particularly well-done. We saw him picking up the phone and being told, then after another brief scene, we saw his reaction, demonstrating his love for his brother. What was so good was that we didn't linger on his reaction for 5 minutes or so. It was brief, and that let us feel the moment without staying so long we felt embarrassed. If you loved JFK, you saw some nice tender moments with him and his family. If you hated him, you saw some of the bad parts of the man. These were done in understated, not titillating ways. If you are interested in an accurate portrayal, you got to see positive and negative JFK. A big feature was the detailed portrayal of Lee Harvey Oswald. His is the character we generally don't know enough about in terms of understanding what made him do the things he did. The film deals with his moving to the USSR, then finding out he hates it over there too, so he and his Russian wife move to the US, where they have a rather unhappy life, so much so that Lee spends many months living apart from her, visiting the tiny kids on the weekends. We saw a bit of his activities in New Orleans and his impulsive appearance at the Cuban embassy in Mexico City, where he tried to get permission to move to Cuba. Oswald's attempt to assassinate an American General was shown as well, believing him a big enemy of communism. Later, we saw a very vivid depiction of the shooting of Officer Tippet and the way the police swarmed into the theater to capture Oswald. The point wasn't to try to bring out facts unknown to people, but to put these things together in a way that lets the reader (for the book) and viewer (for the movie) know the people involved better than before. For anyone who doesn't know a lot about what happened, this is a way to learn much in just a couple of hours. I found no weaknesses in the actor portrayals, nor their looks compared with the real life people, with one exception. We both noted that while they identified the main characters with a picture of the actor/actress beside a photo of the real person, they chose not to do so with Francis Guinan and Lyndon B. Johnson. We figured that is because the actor did not look that much like the politician. On a typical Sunday evening, after all we have done in a typical weekend, it would not be odd to find one of us nodding off while watching a movie. Neither of us got the least bit sleepy during Killing Kennedy. Given that we both knew in detail what events were going to take place, I'd say that proves it was an excellent film.

This is Bill O'Reilly's take on the assassination of President Kennedy. Maybe there's a greater depth in the book, but the movie is a fairly superficial examination of Kennedy (Rob Lowe) and Lee Harvey Oswalt (Will Rothhaar). Two TV hours with all the commercials is just not enough to do a deep look into two big characters like Kennedy and Oswalt. There isn't much new here for Kennedy. It's a well traveled path. Of course Bill puts in all the hot button topics about the womanizing and the drug injections. Rob Lowe does little more than mimicry. Ginnifer Goodwin doesn't have the regal stature of Mrs Kennedy. Any number of other movies make a more compelling portrait. For example, the Cuban missile crisis was done better in Thirteen Days (2000). My hope was for the Oswalt half. They could give him a depth that isn't out there in any movie. But I think Will Rothhaar does a relatively bland job. Michelle Trachtenberg does a much better job. Her role in the family is absolutely fascinating. The movie really needed to concentrate more on the Oswalts and sideline the Kennedys. The technicals are relatively good for a TV movie. The style is still unimaginative. For the budget, we can't expect much more. It certainly doesn't have the tension or the suspense. We get nothing but the simplified highlights.

Knowing Billo's politics, I feel violated, repulsed and disgusted that he had the audacity to write a book on this subject. The only redeeming thing about this film is Rob Lowe. I hope Rob wakes up politically one day. He is super talented and I think he has the wit and intelligence to start seeing what's happening in the party of politics he supports. I prefer Stone's version on this subject. His film respects Kennedy and his admirers. This film is one dimensional and revolves around the so called official story of the lone gunman. That story has too many holes in it to have as much credibility as this film gives it. This film is a mistake... it should never have been made. However, I am sure others will follow of this ilk. The conservatives hate the Kennedy family and all they stand for. So they will do anything to wilt and tarnish history in order to be right about their own beliefs and philosophies.

Bill O'Reilly likes to think of himself as an historian. I'm afraid he's anything but. All he has done in "Killing Kennedy" is follow the extremely dubious findings of the Warren Report, which has since been debunked by most sane-thinking people. The first hour or so is more or less a history lesson of known facts, intermingled with a character bashing of Oswald, but other interpretations can be used regarding both in relation to the Kennedy assassination. For example, although there were suspicions, the shooting of General Walker was never officially attributed to Oswald. Regarding the Kennedy assassination, which was covered only in the last 30 minutes, O'Reilly completely ignores: 1. The witnesses to shots coming from the grassy knoll and the picket fence. 2. The incompetency of the rifle supposedly used by Oswald. It was the worst on the market at the time. And what assassin would use a mail ordered weapon in an assassination, and leave it at the scene of the alleged crime? Oswald wasn't THAT stupid. 3. The marksmanship required to accurately fire three rounds in under 6 seconds using such an inferior weapon well known for inaccuracy. Oswald was no marksman, contrary to the inferences in this movie. 4. That no transcript or recording of the interrogation of Oswald exists. And no representation for Oswald provided. 5. The witnesses in the Texas Book Depository giving Oswald an alibi. 6. The Zagruber film. 7. The 'magic' pristine bullet. 8. The disappearance of Kennedy's brain. 9. The mismanaged autopsy. 10. Other explanations of events, and events and occurrences not covered above. O'Reilly may be a renowned TV host, but as an historian he would make a great balloon salesman. Both being inflated with hot air. Rather than being treated as history, the assassination parts of this movie must be placed in the realms of fantasy, as has by most, the Warren Report.

Will Rothhaar's portrayal of Lee Harvey Oswald carries "Killing Kennedy." At two hours, with the last 35 minutes completely dominated by commercial breaks, there is simply not enough time to provide any depth or layering to JFK's side of the story. Rob Lowe does a fine impersonation of Kennedy, but ultimately he is the star of a flip book about the highlights of JFK's presidency. Oswald's ideology and personality disorders were the dominant themes of the last years of his life, more so than the outward trappings. Oswald's life was complex, too, yet the script of "Killing Kennedy" gives Rothhaar far more room to move, and this he uses to build a portrayal of a sociopath driven by paranoia, unfocused anger, misperception and arrogance. Despite the thousands of forests that have fallen so that books might be printed about the assassination, Oswald remains an enigma to many people. Rothhaar's portrayal of Oswald ably depicts his fundamental inability to accurately assess people, organizations and situations, which left him perpetually confused, frustrated and angry. The peculiar, menacing aspects of his personality made him an abusive husband, made friendships impossible, and insured that he would be fired after only a few weeks from yet another menial job. "Killing Kennedy" makes the case for Oswald as the lone gunman, as do Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard in their self-same titled book on which the movie is based. Whether or not you subscribe to their version of events, their portrayal of Lee Harvey Oswald as political assassin is convincing. Undeterred by his failures and dismissive of his repeated rejections, Oswald maintained the fiction that he was a revolutionary, an insurgent in movements he believed he saw happening before everyone else. There is "misguided," then there is "delusional." The former can evoke some sympathy. The latter, never. Sociopaths have delusions of grandeur, and a notion that they are better than the groups that reject them. Lee Harvey Oswald had both, and no reason for either.

KILLING KENNEDY, a TV movie adaptation of a book that claims to expose the truth about Lee Harvey Oswald being the sole assassin behind the JFK murder, has to be one of the dullest movies I've ever witnessed. It comes on the back of Oliver Stone's epic-feeling JFK and the recent, excellent TV miniseries THE KENNEDYS, so what more could there possibly be to say? The answer is, not a whole lot. The idea behind KILLING KENNEDY is to present a dual narrative, one from the point of view of JFK in the years leading up to his death, the other to chronicle Oswald's life from when he first arrives in America. Unfortunately, neither plot strand is interesting, and it doesn't help that there's an insipid, TV-movie feel to the whole thing. It feels staid and safe, never dangerous, despite the natural drama of the history. Rob Lowe makes for a passable Kennedy, although he's no Greg Kinnear, just as Jack Noseworthy is no Barry Pepper. His story has been done to death and nothing new is brought to the table here. Will Rothhaar's Oswald is a little more interesting, but the drama in his life still feels subdued for some reason. Michelle Trachtenberg is unrecognisable from her early days and makes a good stab of playing Oswald's Russian wife. In the end, though, this is a film that treads water throughout, totally ignores any of the conspiracy theories behind the assassination, and ends up being incredibly dull as a result.