Power and Beauty

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.

"Beauty and Power" tells of only the sensationalistic parts of the life of the late Judith Campbell Exner, paramour to Sinatra, JFK, and mafia boss Sam Giancana. This bland, vanilla, and downright dull biopic contradicts itself by palming off Exner as a bright woman who just happened to fall in love with rich and influential men while she behaves like a dunce who just can't keep her panties on. "B&P" is lacking in substance, chock full of too clever repartee, and poorly develops the Exner centerpiece. Those interested in facts about the woman can get more from the Internet in 15 minutes than from this 90 minute flick. Those interested in entertainment should look elsewhere. (D)

This so-called expose of the Kennedy Administration's close ties with the mob tells nothing that hasn't been printed millions of times before. That he detested FBI director J. Edgar Hoover but couldn't bring him down because of his "file" on Kennedy has been buzzed about in the media for at least thirty years. Kennedy's girlfriends slipping in and out of the White House for rendezvous with the Chief Executive in the "Harding" closet is also passé. The Bay of Pigs fiasco has been worked to death by the media too. So why spend tons of money on a made-for-cable feature about a topic now irrelevant by overexposure? It's obvious from production values that not much dough was wasted by Showtime on this time filler.

The casting is poor as far as lookalikes. Even the lead Natasha Henstridge as Judy Exner doesn't resemble the Kennedy paramour very much. She would actually have done better playing Jackie. And where's Bobby? President Kennedy relied heavily on his younger brother for guidance and advice. Bobby was a key figure in taking Marilyn Monroe off the President's hands following her Happy Birthday indiscretion on national TV. John and Robert were nearly always together. In this film, he is only mentioned once or twice and never shown.

The movie does reveal Judy Exner as being naive not only in romance but also in politics. Obviously caught up in the glitz and glitter of high society and Washington politics, she went along for the thrill ride with no thought of the consequences. That she was used and abused by the Kennedy bunch is difficult to believe. After all, what did she really have to offer in return besides sex? And even that came easy for JFK, the sixty-second man.

I just felt like saying this movie isn't as bad as everyone else seems to think. Sure it wasn't what I hoped for, but it was decent...

Being a big fan of the Rat Pack, the main reason I saw this movie was to see how Frank, Dean, and Sammy were portrayed, and I was sorely disappointed. Sammy only had one line (on stage at the Sands), while Frank had quite a few, but the actor portraying him looked, and sounded nothing like the original... It boggles the mind as to why they even cast the guy for Sinatra. Way too short, and way too emaciated, he looked more like a sleazy, third rate imitator of the voice. As for my favorite member, Dean had zilch to do or say. Sammy and Dean only appeared in two scenes I believe.

Peter Lawford was portrayed by a rather old actor who looked like he was in his late 60s. Though he looked more like the real deal than 'Frank', much was left to be desired.

'Momo' suffered the same fate. They cast a guy that spoke with nary a trace of a hood's accent, and he appeared very much like an accountant than a gangster. Well at least this was better than '98's Rat Pack where he sprouted a black hat and dark glasses in every scene.

What really bothered me though was the cliches, mainly 'Frank' wearing the same black hat in just about every scene he was in, including him with his tux, which looked odd to say the least. And he is a good dresser in real life.

The only one that I felt comfortable with was Natasha Henstridge as Judy, but who ever knew that with dark hair the blonde bombshell would turn out looking like the twin of Courtney Cox...

Now on the story...

Interesting... Don't expect any focus whatsoever on The Rat Pack, but do expect a very cut-rate romance movie, which is very slow on development with very stiff cardboard characters. While this may be a tad better than most average soap operas, what kills it is the fact that it is a biopic.

The first flashback for Judith Exner is in her bedroom at age 18 in 1952. The camera pans over items, including a Princess phone.

Princess phones were not produced until the very late 50's or early 60's. If this doesn't give you an idea of the production values, check out the car model years and the actors who do not remotely resemble their character.