When a movie uses a long list of star actors in small roles, it is usually because there is too little meat on the story as a whole. In the case of the assassination of Robert Kennedy, we already know the basics, so instead we get the tale of a selection of employees and guests at the hotel that hosted the fatal evening. The murder becomes an excuse to tell the snapshot story of a day in the USA in 1968.
There is no real plot here, just several parallel stories that do cross paths somewhat. There are the phone-lady who has an affair with the manager, who´s wife works as a hairdresser in the same hotel. There are the drunk lady singer who visits the hairdresser and so on. Some characters are just presented in their workplace, like the two Mexicans in the kitchen. Now i am not sure if there is a consistent red thread through all the characters, but at least some of them has a fate in common. They are all going to be present at the shooting of Bobby in the kitchen and get "involved" in one way or another.
I am very sympathetic to the idea of telling this snapshot story. The actors do a fine job, and i was pleasantly surprised by Sharon Stones hairdresser. She has always been sort of seen as a second rate actor but she nailed that one good. Also the kitchen scenes with the Mexicans and Fishbourne are really good. Great acting. The problem with such an all star cast, is that none of them really gets to shine, since they all have to have some of the runtime. The director, Emilio Estevez surprisingly, does a perfect job of connecting the scenes and the stories in a smooth way. But they still feel fractured and frantic to a certain extent, and frankly, not all of the stories are that interesting. After all the individuals were just at that certain place and time by coincidence, not because they had interesting stories to show off.
The worst part for me though is the political correctness. Bobby Kennedy is presented as a savior and almost a martyr. But listen carefully to the speech that is used as a narrator during the chaos scenes after the shooting. He talks about the rising levels of violence in society and that violence breeds more violence etc. All the while he is himself the one who wants to be in control of the largest and most violent institution in the world, that kills millions of innocent people in Vietnam via the military-industrial complex - financed by taxes extorted from the population by the use of threat of violence. The level of cognitive dissonance is mind-blowing. One might add that the killer Sirhan Sirhan is a Palestinian, who was angry about USAs involvement in the 6 days war in 1967 ... violence breeds violence.
Rating: 5/10
