muons The movie is about the assassination of Bob Kennedy. Instead of the main character, the focus is on the people who got wounded on the night when the incident happened. With the exception of a few cases which include some blurry or from the back images, the scenes involving Kennedy are the actual news and camera footage from his speeches and public appearances. In that respect, the movie feels like a documentary wrapped inside some fictional drama. This is certainly a different kind of storytelling by which the director implicitly gives a cross-sectional view of the society of the day. Those low-profile background events are actually displayed on the foreground until the expected happens. Despite the originality of its narrative, the film misses its mark. The stories of those wounded people flow on separate unconnected or artificially connected streams, which are reminiscent of soap operas. The characters as well as their stories are pretty dull and unengaging. The visual effects that blend the original video footage to movie scenes however, are quite successful.

callanvass A story of how President Kennedy was shot in the early hours of the morning and how it affected the lives of everyone around him. I don't remember much about this movie, but it did have some powerful moments. Emilio Estevez hung up his acting boots to sit in the Director's chair. He's a pretty good Director in all honesty. If you want a better example, watch The Way Way Back. It has an all-star cast that will knock the socks off of the most critical. I do remember that the cast kept me going, but it was a little bit too slow-paced for my liking. Political enthusiasts will likely find things to enjoy about this movie. 6/10

oscar-35 *Spoiler/plot- 2006, A film covering the many lives that intersected in 1968 during the Californian presidential election involving Robert Kennedy's murder in Los Angeles.*Special Stars- Anthony Hopkins, Lawrence Fishburne, Helen Hunt, Demi Moore, William Macy, Martin Sheen, Sharon Stone, Christian Slater. Dir: Emilio Estevez *Theme- Many lives are connected as we live through life.*Based on- True occurrences around the R.F.K. assignation at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles.*Trivia/location/goofs- A giant star cast in this film. Shot at the hotel in question.*Emotion- A character driven plot situations that was well acted and beautifully written by a stellar cast. This film did over do the beatification or sainthood of Senator Robert Kennedy due to the political leanings of the writer and director. People who also lived through the time might see things more rationally.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU Such a film is imprinted with nostalgia and a tremendous human lesson in history.When all these events were happening all over the world in Czechoslovakia, France, China, the USA and many other countries, when we thought the world was going to change completely overnight, I was in Africa and I lived the closure of these enthusing events in Kinshasa.And all the events came to a complete halt. In Czechoslovakia, the Russians will come later on to curb their spring down. In France elections will give the widest majority de Gaulle ever had. In The USA Martin Luther King was assassinated, Robert Kennedy was assassinated and the war in Vietnam got seven more years of rotting madness.We thought the world could be changed by the masses and it was not. The masses are not the whole people and it often takes few people in a mass to neutralize the mass or lead it over the brink. History is probably not done by the masses but in fact it is done by itself, by its own contradictions and its own means. In 1968, the war in Vietnam was not ripe enough to bring a defeat to the US and in the US, apart from the young and the Blacks, the vast silent majority voted for the war and not for its end. In Czechoslovakia, like in all the "socialist" countries the situation was not ripe for the fall of the Soviet dogma, or the Maoist one as for that.But when is history ripe for change? No one can say before, or very few can and these are not listened to. No one can program a revolution and it is often pure chance when one occurs. It is not the decision of one man or one group of people. It is the result of vast conditions that have to be favorable to that change and myriads of parameters that have to converge towards such an event. The Soviet revolution was the result of an international situation that made Russia ripe for a radical change, just as the Chinese revolution was the result of a similar international situation.In 1968 nothing was ripe for a radical change in any country at all. Any change could happen only after the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, and even so it had to emerge in China first with the elimination of Lin Biao in 1971 and the slow emergence of Deng Xiaoping. And that only came because China was China and the Chinese people wanted to improve their lot by their own means and efforts and some leaders were able to capture this need, this want, this desire to turn it into patriotism.This film then is the demonstration that it is not enough even to win an important primary for history to accept to let the winner take over and change the world. The world changes when history is ready for that change. The only thing we can be sure of is that in the long run it will become freer, more democratic, more peaceful, richer and maybe also wiser. But there is no end to that slow and long process: there will always be some more steps to take.What can we do? Remember the failed opportunities of the past and try to build new opportunities like with this film in 2006 and 2007 that contributed to Obama's history, and keep in mind that one step forward may be followed by two steps backward, and then later on maybe by three steps forward. No one can tell. No one can predict or decide of these steps, though it would be absurd not to seize an opportunity when it appears, even if in the end it fails.This film is unluckily not serious enough as for the historical dimension of these tragic events. It is too nostalgic and even sentimental. But it played its role even if the real film on the subject gas to be done and the absence of security for one still has to be analyzed and understood. It is too easy to say that America has a violent culture. It also had a particularly negligent security policy. Security was the least important item of their consciousness. Man is benevolent by definition, but man is also violent by definition. They considered the first side of man and forgot the second though they tried to appeal to it in Vietnam.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU