JFK

Rating:
Summary: I want to know who the men in the Shadows are,...
Review: [This review is based upon the VHS copy of "JFK: The Director's Cut". However, I recommend this two-disc DVD for the additional documentary material it brings to the table. - Doug Peschka]

Since before "JFK" was first released in 1991, the national media have been jumping
all over Oliver Stone's case for not making a historically accurate documentary.

HELLO! Oliver Stone said himself that never was his intention to begin with !!!

Folks, this movie is not about the actual facts of who really killed John Kennedy and why.
It's all about the value of every conscientious American thinking for themselves and questioning authority.

And that's what "JFK" does - it makes you think for yourself and ask your own questions,
and do your own thinking. On that merit alone, it would make John Kennedy - and Robert Kennedy - both very proud.

That is what our schools' history books should do. Not just feed us the official line that "A lone nut named Oswald did it alone". But a present us with all of the known facts, and an encouragement to all students - and to all the American People - to search for the truth themselves.

In a book called Proverbs, we are reminded that "Where there is no vision, the people perish."

Nothing is more important than facing the world with our eyes and minds open.
That is the central meaning of "JFK". When I sat in the theater in early 1992 and watched
"JFK" I thought of the important words of Jackson Browne's 1987 hit "Lives In The Balance":

"You might ask what it takes to remember
when you know that you've seen it before,
where a government lies to a people
and a country is drifting to war.

They sell us the President the same way
they sell us our clothes and our cars.
They sell us everything from Youth to Religion
the same time they sell us our wars.

I want to know who the men in the shadows are
I want to hear somebody asking them why
they can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are
but they're never the ones to fight or to die."

No, not all of "JFK" is fact. But it does contain more truths
than the Warren Report does.

Question Authority.

While you still can.


Rating:
Summary: Sad.
Review: The 2003 ABC special on the assassination effectively demonstrated that this movie is deceitful and a thoroughly fictional portrayal of both Garrison and the events surrounding the assassination. In that special, Peter Jennings noted that only the "irredeemable" conspiracy buffs, those "beyond the pale", could still cling to conspiracy notions. Alas, those people seem to be everywhere, with many of them giving this movie 5 star reviews.
On a lighter note, let's take a vote: Which Kevin Costner accent was more laugh-out-loud funny: the English one in "Robin Hood" or the Southern one in "JFK"?



Rating:
Summary: Good Film...For a Paranoid Delusion
Review: I really liked this film when I first saw it in theatres, even as I doubted a lot of methods in which Stone draws his conclusions and retells his "facts." The cast is good and, to be such a long film, it holds together.

But in the years since then, a lot more has come out about the Kennedy assassination--and Stone's film.
I just watched a show on the History Channel last night that completely destroys this movie's entire conspiracy theory. It WAS possible for Oswald to get off three shots from 88 yards (and an 89-year-old man did it nearly a dozen times to demonstrate it); the fatal head shot DID come from behind the president (as shown in the autopsy); the "magic bullet" DID create the wounds in Kennedy and Governor Connally without turning or "hanging in the air" (a computer recreation showed how everyone was sitting for that to happen).

Can these things still be argued? I believe that anyone looking at all the data available now would have a hard time doing so. But I know they will. There's a paranoid guy at work who's passing out cheaply-made "documentaries" of what REALLY happened on 9-11, so crazy theories about everything will always be around.

It was also disappointing to find out that Jim Garrison, the crusading attorney played Kevin Costner, was revised by Stone for his movie--and that Stone completely embellished his final speech in the film. Garrison never said that!
I don't really have much of a problem with that kind of artistic license, but only if it's acknowledged. As long as Oliver Stone continues to insist that his version of JFK is reality, then it tends to make open-minded viewers a little squeamish.

"Well, if that's not how it happened, then it should have!"
That sounds more like something Michael Moore would say....



Rating:
Summary: Entertaining Drivel
Review: Okay, the film is very entertaining. There, I've said it. Now on to the serious stuff. Some people think that even if you don't believe the conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination, it is worth seeing this film because "it makes you think". The tragedy of this view is that it destroys people's belief that there is something like "the Truth" and encourages mental laziness by not pushing people to look at the evidence, and the evidence clearly shows that the Warren Commissions conclusions about the roles of Oswald and Ruby are correct. Many former "conspiracy buffs" like Norman Mailer and Gus Russo did this and admitted they had been wrong.
Oliver Stone's disregard of the truth is appalling. First off, JFK and RFK were no "liberal saints" that were out to overturn a "corrupt establishment". JFK was the best friend the "military/industrial complex" ever had. He poured huge amounts of money into it by carrying out the biggest peacetime military build-up in history and by giving the go-ahead for the Apollo program to put a man on the Moon by 1970. JFK moved very cautiously on civil rights and appointed segregations judges to the Federal Courts. After the Bay of Pigs, he felt the CIA should be more tightly controlled and so he put in brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy as unofficial overseer of the organization, taking a VERY active role in Operation Mongoose which was to remove Castro from power in Cuba, by assassination if necessary. Kennedy was making contradictory statements about Vietnam, but there was no real indication he had a concrete plan to pull out, and it must be remembered that President Eisenhower also decided in 1954 not to get involved in helping the French there, thus allowing a Communist takeover of North Vietnam and yet the CIA and the Establishment didn't decide to rub him out. We see that JFK and RFK were no threat to the "establishment" and even if he was, they could have easily gotten rid of them by leaking information about JFKs poor health or his scandalous womanizing involving women who had Mafia or East German connections, all of which FBI Director J Edgar Hoover and many others including journalists knew about but handled discreetely, so there was no need to come up with the ridiculous assassination scheme Stone invents in this film.
In the ridiculous trial of Clay Shaw (who was acquitted by the jury after only a few minutes deliberation-showing how effective a prosecutor that charlatan Jim Garrison was) Garrison quickly points out that there were "several teams of shooters" in Dealey Plaza. Where is there any shred of evidence of this? Yet, this is presented as fact. This is symptomatic of everything that is wrong with this genre of film. It is unfortunate that this anti-intellectualism and cynicism is spreading throughout modern society leading to things like Holocaust denial, racism, support for international terrorism and the like. I hope everyone takes note of this and steers clear of this film and its ilk.

Rating:
Summary: Does the truth really matter? I submit...
Review: That no, in this case it does not. Regardless of whether you believe that the assasination of JFK was a conspiracy, this movie is well worth the time. It is significant for its courage in bringing to the front of viewer's minds the thought that yes, our government can, and sometimes does, conceal the truth from its people. This movie's scope is not simply the assasination of John F. Kennedy, but the naive belief that our government, and indeed any government, should be blindly trusted. By reminding us that all power corrupts, this film illustrates the simple fact that every citizen must question his government's motives and actions, and that in order for democracy to continue, information must flow freely.

Rating:
Summary: One star as history, four as a film
Review: This film is without question effective and engrossing, done by a very talented director.
As a history of the Kennedy assassination, however, it is a horrible joke, all the worse because people take it at face value. Stone comes from the 'throw-it-all-at-them' school of conspiracy theories, where he's completely unconcerned whether all of his facts are correct, fit together, or even contradict each other; he just wants you to accept something, anything.
He had been a hero to me before this film, with 'Salvador', 'Platoon', and 'Wall Street', but he lost me completely and forever with this cynical pack of lies. He surely knew that much of what he was putting out here was false but did it anyway. An absolute disgrace.
To go through all the evidence here is, naturally, impossible, but perhaps one typical example wouldn't go amiss: Stone calls Oswald a good American, just trying to live a good life. Here's the truth, well-established and documented. Oswald bought the rifle and was even photographed with it, photos verified by top experts. He used the rifle to try and kill General Edwin Walker 6 months before, a fact verified by forensics and by the testimony of Marina, to whom he admitted it. On the night before the assassination he stayed with Marina (they were separated), breaking what had been his habit (he generally only stayed on weekends), because he had to pick up the rifle which was kept in the garage. He took it with him, in the guise of 'curtain rods' wrapped in paper (what a phenomenal coincidence, to have taken something the same shape and length as a rifle to work the day of the assassination!!), to work the next day. That morning he left his wedding ring and almost all of his money with Marina (what a coincidence, to have done this on the day of the assassination!). Then, after the assassination, he abruptly left without speaking to anyone, rushed home to grab a pistol, left immediately, entered a cinema without paying (I'm skipping the murder of the policeman, assuming him a "good citizen")then fought a policeman who approached him, even pulling the trigger, which didn't fire. All of this is fact and well-documented by unimpeachable sources. Does this sound like the actions of an innocent man to you, as Stone would have it? What a joke!!!
If you must see this thing then enjoy it as drama, taking the rest with a grain of salt. I know there isn't the least chance of this, however.