Bobby (R)
Mike:
Scott:
Scott: Tonight we are reviewing Bobby
, the story of the other lives that were changed when Senator Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated.
Scott: What did you think Mike?
Mike: I was excited when I saw the cast and the subject matter. Then I saw the movie. Needless to say I was disappointed again.
And you?
Scott: I was psyched when I saw the cast. All of these actors, most of whom have been leading actors in their own movies, with all of them, it had to be a great movie right? Not so much
Bob Uecker put it best in Major League, "Just a bit outside."
Mike: This movie has way too many characters and stories that frankly are hard to care about.
Honestly, it’s like a Love Boat movie.
Scott: Just because you witnessed an important, historical event, does not mean that your story leading up to said event is worth telling.
Mike: Correct.
Scott: You are right about Love Boat too. There were so many actors and so many stories that you couldn't get in to any of them.
Mike: It is definitely a slice of life movie, but none of the stories are compelling.
There is some nice acting, but nothing that grips you.
Scott: I didn't see enough of anyone to say it was good acting.
Mike: The best parts are actually the archival footage of the real Bobby Kennedy.
Scott: Right. The movie started out with 5 minutes of archive footage that was really interesting. I was excited for a good movie at that point.
Mike: I think it might have been more interesting if we also got to see what he was doing during the day leading up to the assassination also.
No such luck.
Scott: I liked hearing the history of the hotel. That was nice.
Mike: Another problem is that like Titanic, you know where this movie is headed and so you spend a lot of time waiting for what you know is coming.
In fact the assassination scene is pretty well done.
Scott: I thought the movie was going to be more about Bobby than of the other characters and I was annoyed that no one was introduced. I was expecting some text to name who the characters were, like other movies of the historic genre
Mike: Except I think they are all fictional characters. All of them.
Scott: Honestly, not knowing anything about what happened, I wasn't sure what was real and what was fake.
Mike: I will admit I learned a couple things. I did not know that other people were shot during the attempt.
Scott: The way this movie was talked about in the press I thought it would be some liberal flag waving call to arms. It wasn't, it was just a regular story, or stories, shot against the assassination.
Mike: One good thing about this movie is that it will get people to go look up the actual event on the internet or even from a book.
Scott: What's a book?
Mike: You sound like a broken record. Dad, what's a record?
Scott: I didn't know that others were shot either. I felt sorry for them since in this film they were clearly not cared for as fast as RFK.
Mike: In my research I found out that some of the movie was filmed in the actual Ambassador Hotel right before it was demolished.
Scott: I am going to do a little research on what happened. This movie didn't do anything to expand my knowledge, or that of any others, on the events of that day.
I know the screenplay was completed the week before 9/11, but that's the extent of my knowledge.
Mike: There is not quite a liberal agenda in the film, but everyone talks about Bobby as if he was going to be the savior of the United States. The attitude is that he is the only game in town, but I'm sure Nixon supporters thought the same thing at the time.
There is definitely a rose colored haze about him, because he died so young.
Scott: It seemed like everyone spoke that Bobby was going to be great, but they didn't go into details, basically, it was like a campaign promise. Every candidate sounds good making promises.
People look at those who die young and project their life out to something that would have been the best for the world. Maybe that would have been the case, but for some reason, I doubt it.
Mike: The film was written and directed by Emilio Estevez, the forgotten Sheen.
Technically the film is pretty good, just not interesting.
He gets the details right and the camera work is nice, but the story lacks focus.
Scott: I think he let everyone do whatever they wanted, he didn't rein anyone in
Mike: Throughout the movie I kept thinking, "What's the point?'
Scott: I was getting frustrated with the movie. I just didn't see where it was heading. We all knew where the movie was going, but the various plotlines only obscured the movie
Mike: The cast includes some talented actors: Harry Belafonte, Heather Graham, Anthony Hopkins, Helen Hunt, Demi Moore, Sharon Stone, Laurence Fishburne, Martin Sheen, William H Macy and more.
The problem is that I don't think that any one of them stands out.
Scott: Too many to name. It was truly an ensemble cast.
Mike: I think any Oscar talk is premature, because none of the actors drew me in enough to care about what would be happening to their characters the next day.
Scott: I liked William H. Macy, but I always do. Moore was good as a drunken lounge act.
I was going to say that no one had screen time for an Oscar nod, but now we know you only need 14 seconds to win an acting award. (Ellen Burstyn got an Emmy nomination for a 14 second performance.)
Mike: The other problem with a name cast like this is that you spend half the movie going,"Look, there's Ashton Kutcher. Is that Lindsay Lohan?".
Scott: One part of the movie I did like was all of the archive footage. I hadn't seen that much of RFK and it was nice to see him speaking. I am glad they didn't use a look-a-like stand in for him.
Mike: So what do you rate this?
Scott: I rate this a 2 overall. Very disappointing in it's take on history and it's use of quality actors. I rate a 1.5 as historical drama since it just wasn't the history I came to see.
Mike: I give the movie a 2.5 overall and a 2 for historical drama.
When Anthony Hopkins asks, "What happened?', all I could think was "They shot 2 hours of my evening!".
