If you read Variety's review of this made for TV film you would think it's a real stinker but if you look at it as if the producer was honestly trying to recreate an historical drama it comes off as something much more satisfying. Most liberals will hate this film because it's almost sacrilegious to explore the inter workings of John F. Kennedy's personal life. Look how they felt about Dr. Martin Luther King when they accused him of plagiarism. Kennedy is still every liberal's most favorite modern president since before Roosevelt. But to think his Camelot image could be tarnished with these allegations of extramarital relations is just too much for some. These stories have never gone away and stories like this one are possibly more factual than fiction. What Variety magazine and others don't like is the fact the producer didn't fictionalize the story to such a degree that it could be dismissed as pure fiction. No, this story might just be true. I notice IMDb doesn't risk calling it an historical drama.
Yes, Kevin Anderson is miscast as John F. Kennedy but who could ever recreate the persona of JFK? And I think it was effective not to try too hard to do this but suggest there was another man behind the public figure of JFK. If nothing else, Natasha Henstridge is a delight to watch and John Ralson as Sinatra does an excellent impersonation of his Las Vegas act.
I am convinced the producer was trying to get to the truth and be damned with entertainment content. Also, having this film produced outside of the United States confirms my inclinations that this film was a sincere attempt at producing an historical drama.
