Watch Jackie, Ethel, Joan: The Women of Camelot For Free

To me, this movie is perfection.

Sick Product of a Sick System

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

what a bad casting director can produce. Daniel Hugh Kelley as JFK ranks up there in the worst 5 imitations of JFK, attempting a Boston accent, attempting charm, attempting charisma, and achieving none of the above.In fairness, this is TV, and Jill Hennessey more than balances out his poor performance as Jackie Kennedy; she looks and acts very much the part; if you are a fan of hers you may still be able to enjoy her in this film.Lauren Holly plays Ethel Kennedy as a brash, crude, ugly American. I can honestly say I don't know if she really was like this, but it almost seems like defamation of character. Calling President Johnson a "crude redneck" after learning her husband will not accompany him as Vice President in the White House- please- The script seems almost subversive.Harve Presnell is believable as elder Joseph Kennedy, and there are some interesting scenes between him and Ms. Hennessey, the only redeeming performances in this TV movie. Leslie Stefanson is also touching as Joan Kennedy, and Matt Letscher looks the part of Ted Kennedy as a young man.The worst casting (besides JFK), was of Marilyn Monroe. Sarah Lafleur is a bloated blow-up doll, and portrayed as a brainless alcoholic. She looks nothing like her, and cannot act. Also the character portraying Ari Onassis is a pale example of what the Greek shipping-magnate must have been like.This is a four hour TV movie, and if you like Hennessey, tune in toward the middle. The rest is not worth watching.

I was flipping through my telly and I stopped upon seeing Jill Hennessy in dated attire on the Hallmark Channel. After a few minutes I realized she was playing Jackie Kennedy and I kept watching... Lauron Holly popped up on screen soon after and I took a liking to the characters at once. The next day I watched the second/last part of the miniseries. I thought it was well acted and it gave depth to the Kennedy women (I haven't read the book) that I had not previously seen (except Jackie). I loved Jill Hennessy in it, we see a Jackie post-JFK. I cried my eyes out when JFK was shot.. Hennessy's best part of the series.The guy actors all seemed the same to me... they had that kind of "every-man" face... I guess that was the point. If you like seeing shows about strong women, you'll like this, but I didn't follow the historical accuracy of it, and I didn't get such a sense of 60-ies in it (prob coz the series spans over 30 years) except for the change of clothes. If you watch it with an open mind, ready to enjoy yourself, you'll like it, if you take it too seriously you might not.

Television mini-series are usually poor quality, and this is no exception. The acting is below average and therefore unconvincing. The domestic dramas are played out like 'Young and the Restless' without any understanding of the complexities of such events. Worst of all, the pacing is so frantic that it's difficult to feel involved in the potentially riveting story.Perhaps part of the problem is in the very nature of the set-up - the Kennedy women simply aren't as interesting as their husbands as they were only bit players in the most interesting events in history. The Cuban missile crisis, for example, must have been a fascinating and horrifying event to live through. Yet seen through Jackie's eyes, it barely sustains interest and is over in five minutes because she barely had anything to do with it.'The Women of Camelot' is only tolerable because the Kennedys were such an interesting family who played such a significant role in American history in the sixties. No doubt there is a better film to be made of their experiences, one that doesn't turn the story into a cheap and dull soap opera.

One of the wonders of the past century in this country has been the adoration of the Kennedys which has been the equivalent of the fuss some nations display over their royals. Personally I do not think most people realize how inept J.F.K. really was. He claimed to have written "Why England Slept" which was actually written by old Joe's friend at the New York Times, Arthur Krock. He also accepted the Pulitzer for "Profiles in Courage" which was written for him by his "good soldier", Ted Sorensen. Khruschev has so little respect for him that he took a chance and placed nukes in Cuba. J.F.K. finally got them removed but the public did not know we had to take our nukes out of Turkey to complete this deal. This movie does show some part of the alleged "Camelot" and the lives of the Kennedy women. Jackie is shown with her love of money and Ehtel is portrayed as being a bit more stern than most of us had always believed. The real victim in this is Joan who comes out as being overwhelmed by the entire scene in Washington and Cape Cod. There have finally been some great books printed on this era and maybe we are blessed as a nation to have survived the Kennedys.