(My review.) Critics are going after it simply because Emilio Estevez made it. They're too good to even consider an ambitious work from a "Brat Packer," and they're too busy plagiarizing each other (it seems like every single review says Bobby was created from the mold of '70s disaster pics -- partly true, but how 'bout we keep our eyes on our own papers, folks, and come up with some new ideas?).
Lou Lumenick, in a juvenile and witless review, calls Bobby "one of the year's worst movies," and wrongly asserts that it tries and fails to do what Nashville did. Wrong sir. There is no trace of Altman in Bobby. Just because a film has a big cast doesn't make it Altmanesque. Nashville has no heart. Bobby is all heart. You can't compare the two. David Ansen calls Bobby "emotionally opportunistic." Why? Because it dares to get under your skin? Wouldn't you rather have a movie lunge at you instead of having it sit flaccid on the screen?
It ain't a perfect movie -- it uses Simon & Garfunkel in a key sequence for Chrissakes -- but it's the only movie in theaters that asks something of its audience. I am, of course, correct about this, but would still like to hear dissenting opinions.