Rating: 
Summary: Great movie...kinda boring in some parts though...
Review: This was an awesome movie. It's one of my favorites. Oliver Stone did an excellent job directing this gripping movie about the assassination of JFK. It really makes you think about how HUGE the conspiracy was, how it stretched through all braches of government, just for money. While it is boring in some parts, I recommend this court room drama to anyone curious about the assassination of the President on November 22, 1963.
Rating:
Summary: Don't watch this movie uncritically
Review: JFK is brilliant filmmaking. Innovative use of period stock, timeline distortion, flashbacks, and great acting all combine to immerse the viewer in a world that feels decidedly real. Stone succeeded wildly in technically innovating his way to a new kind of cinema verite. The problem is, of course, JFK's just a movie, but the people it depicted (mostly) existed. That immediately opens up Stone's directorial tour-de-force to criticism on grounds of accuracy. There, it languishes in ambiguity and doubt.Though Garrison only barely lived to see the film released, his colleagues at the time have since given interviews in which they described the characterizations of Ferry, Shaw and other principles as unfamiliar. As another reviewer has pointed out, no mention is really made of Shaw's meritorious military service in World War II, nor is Garrison's characterization of Shaw as a "CIA operative" really challenged (he was never on the CIA payroll). Likewise, the film fails to directly explore what happened to Garrison in later life, and how his theories about the assassination kept getting broader and less fact-based. There's no discussion of the allegations of bought witnesses, flimsy evidence, or corruption which swirled around Garrison at later stages of his investigation, and which ultimately helped to lose him a re-election bid. Garrison is merely portrayed as a quixotic hero tilting at government windmills. And indeed maybe he was. Maybe the loss of David Ferrie (his star witness) was so devastating to his case that he tried to put it back together again, using flimsier evidence. Maybe he really had a case and it just evaporated. Or maybe, like some members of the Lousiana press were reporting at the time, he had nothing. JFK does little to settle the debate surrounding Jim Garrison. If anything- and maybe this was Stone's point all along--it's just deepened it. That escalating debate is mirrored in the emotions evoked by the film itself. At its worst, JFK is seen to be dangerous, fact-starved propoganda. Some have found it easy to compare Stone to the acclaimed German director, Leni Riefenstahl, whose stunning art glorified Hitler's regime at the expense of literal truth. At its best, Stone's vision is a dramatization of a few branches of the assassination story unknown to most Americans. Prior to this film, many were unaware that there had been any sort of court case at all connected with the assassination, and that it might have led to a conviction, had Garrison been able to provide better witnesses. It can be claimed that the many inaccuracies in the film are no more egregious than what generally happens in many historical dramas. Whatever faults there are in the facts on display, though, there is actual history in Oliver Stone's film. It's just not the history of the assassination, or even an entirely accurate record of Garrison's investigation. Rather, JFK's strength is in dramatizing some of the main conspiracy theories. And if viewed as more allegory than fact--if Costner's Garrison is seen as a theatrical lens through which to view the various strands of conspiracy theory that have long floated around the assassination--then it works less problematically than if you try to see it as a definitive history of anything that happened in Lousiana or Texas in the 1960s. Fifty years from now, JFK will likely be seen as an accurate history of the way the assassination made people feel. The assassination was the start of anger and rebellion against the government in America. And, whatever its other faults, JFK shows why. Even if many of the events in JFK aren't literally true, and real people take an unjustified beating in Stone's harsh light, Stone isn't exactly making it up. He's putting on the screen the questions that so many Americans had then, and certainly continue to ask. He doesn't arrive at his conclusions through meticulous academic research; Stone assumes, perhaps to his detriment, that Garrison and Marrs have already done his homework for him. No, JFK Is history by reflection. Stone has put a giant mirror in front of the American people and asked whether we like what we see. [DVD Notes: Don't even bother with any other version but the new Director's cut. Neither DVD version has any significant additional featres, but at least the Director's cut has 17 more minutes of footage. It's very frustrating that the DVDs are so devoid of extra features, because there's so much that could have been included. The only reason I'm taking a star away from this product is because of the inexplicably missing bonus material.]
Rating: 
Summary: A great movie and a response to the prior message
Review: Clay Shaw, as it turns out was indeed an employee of the CIA and perjured himself on the stand multiple times during the Garrison trial. In 1979, five years after Shaw's death and 10 years after the trial, Richard Helms of the CIA admits to this. That is hardly an innocent man and when it comes to something as important as the assasination of the President, it becomes even more alarming. Do not try to make a martyr out of Shaw. He may have been a patsy just as Oswald, but he was far from an innocent. This movie is a masterpiece of movement, ideas and structure. The images flow in and out so fast, its impossible to fully digest them all in one sitting. This movie makes you think, and think hard, about those in power and the measures they will take to keep that power. See it and judge for yourself. I dont believe all the paranoia that infiltrates this movie, I but there are a LOT of odd things that go on that are utterly convincing to support the theory of a conspiracy. Any intelligent person who understands physics and watches the film of President Kennedy being shot knows that Oswald could not possibly have made the fatal shot. By definition, unquestionably, there was a conspiracy. As Donald Sutherland's character asked....why would someone want Kennedy killed.....who benefited....who had the power to cover it up....those three questions lead to some very powerful conclusions. In any case, a riveting movie every American should see at least once, if not more.
Rating: 
Summary: Bad
Review: When you have a historical movie, I don't think you can just judge it on its dramatic effect. I think you have to also judge it on whether it is accurate. On the latter, JFK fails miserably. If you read the best book on the assassination CASE CLOSED by Gerald Posner, you'll see that this movie totally slanders Clay Shaw. Clay Shaw was found innocent in a court of law, the evidence since has held up his innocense, and that a paranoid like Oliver Stone should make slanderous crap like this and that people should praise it, is deeply deeply disturbing. I think the making of this movie was, in fact, a criminal act. (How would you like it if, after you died, someone made a movie about you, saying you had killed Nicole Brown Simpson...and a bunch of people on Amazon.com rated it 5 stars. Wouldn't be too fun, now, would it?)
Rating:
Summary: Just Missing the Cherry
Review: This was a film that I have seen numerous times, and every time I see it, it's like I'm watching it for the first time and feel enlightened again. You pick up something new every time. Some of my friend's who have also seen it say that if you don't pay attention to the opening credits with President Eisenhower giving his farewell speech and Martin Sheen narrating over it, you will be lost. Now I have an extensive video library and like many others I have made the transition to DVD (one of the best decisions of my life). So now I am in the midst of replacing all my VHS tapes to DVD, so I noticed that with my DVD copy of JFK there is no additional footage of, as in my VHS copy, "The question of Conspiracy", a behind the scenes look at the film. So I ask Warner Brothers, Oliver Stone, Arnon Milchan and anyone else involved in this wonderful film, what's the deal? A special edition DVD with no theatrical trailers, behind the scenes footage come on! This is why I still haven't gotten rid of my VHS copy. How about exploring the controversy behind the making of this film, how about adding these special features and interviews with the actors who did such exceptional work (props to Donald Sutherland and Kevin Bacon). Aside from that I recommend this to anyone who does not believe that truth is definetely stranger than fiction.
Rating:
Summary: One of my favorite films on DVD - I SHOULD be ecstatic
Review: One of my all time favorites is treated like dirt on DVD. A HORRIBLE transfer. Keep you VHS copy until they rerelease this. It also has next to nothing for extras and it's a dual layer (flipper) disc (long movie of course but not long enough to warrant this since DVD holds 4 hours on each side). This was one of the first films to be put on DVD so maybe all this isn't surprising and I'm sure it will be rereleased... but c'mon Warner Bros., HURRY UP ALREADY! So if you are considering buying JKF on DVD - WAIT.
Rating:
Summary: Very sad and interesting story!
Review: I watched this movie in my Literature class today, and I had to turn away when they showed that terrible footage of him getting shot in the head. This movie will keep your attention. It talks all about "the magic bullet" and the many people that were involved in Kennedy's death. A very gripping movie, I recommend it if you are fascinated with this story.
Rating:
Summary: Oliver Stone's glorious contribution to the world of filming
Review: I was only able to catch back my breath when the entire show is over, and that's when I was able to sit back into my couch.Yes! the movie is that intensive and engaging. Not many human being on this planet is capable of telling a non-fictional story in a most artistic way without hurting the realism and Stone is definitely one of them. If you have already watched 4th of July and owned Nixon but havn't checked out this one, I am telling you you ain't see nothing yet. It's oliver stone's glorious contribution to the world of filming. It's one of the very few true reason we go see something of a movie.
Rating:
Summary: This is a masterpiece.
Review: This is simply one of the most important films to come out of Hollywood. I recently watched this again, after a few years time, and I completely enthralled by it. The depths our government went to lie to us is at the same time shocking and horrifying. The acting is first rate and the story is so powerful that it will leave a lasting impression in you long after you've first seen it. This is epic filmmaking.
Rating:
Summary: Best movie, ever. Period. What was lost November 22, 1963?
Review: That day America lost charismatic leadership elected by the people in favor of secret government. After WWII, we realized we could not ever be caught unprepared for war in a nuclear age, so we continued on in a state of "cold" war. JFK wanted to change this in the middle of the "Cold War"; bad timing for sure. All of those that quibble (look the word up) about Stone's details or pronounce the "LHO did it" have never fired a weapon in U.S. military service, least of all a cruddy Mannlicher-Carcano. Get one and just try manipulating the bolt fast enough for 3 shots. Then try aiming and proper breathing/trigger control. Next, watch the head of JFK react backwards from a frontal shot in Stone's showing of the Zapruder film, proving a frontal shot from a second gunman. Next ponder on the FACT that the next U.S. Government assasination investigation concluded it WAS a conspiracy requiring 2 or more gunmen. The official U.S. Government position is that there WAS A CONSPIRACY. The Warren Commission misconclusion has been superseded. Now what are YOU going to do about it? The point is the people of America have become cowards, the secret government knows that it has to do all our dirty work because we certainly will not do it. This is why they knew they could remove the elected President by coup d'etat and get away with it, as they then proceeded to kill RFK, MLK, Malcolm-X and George Wallace, don't forget they shot Reagen, too---anyone who offered a shimmer of hope of "being his own man" while in public office/position of visibility that could awaken the lazy Gen-Me/X/Y generations. What died that day in Dallas was the belief that a charismatic leader could inspire the populace of America to get involved in our government. Since that time its been all "down hill". And who is to blame? We are. When we become more intelligent as Stone's films can make us realize the nature of things, then we can take a more active role in government without the secret caretakers of this Republic getting alarmed and feel like they have to assassinate us. It took a tremendous amount of courage for Oliver Stone to make this film, and I salute everyone in the cast, too. The point of this film is to be a charismatic THINKING leader in your own right and not let the "bad people scare you" as Garrison tells his children. Stone shows why the men who killed JFK were angry at him, and they have good reasons for their wrong doing. Still makes it wrong, but "good people" can do bad things. Look at Nazi Germany--we are not immune from mob or group-think. You don't offer to disarm in the face of world communism. See Stone's Nixon and this will be clear, too. However, the conspirators that killed our charismatic leaders are wrong because America needs people of charisma holding things together at every level, they alone can't do it all. If they wanted JFK out of office, see to it that he was voted, not SHOT out of office. What we have here today is a slow death of America at many levels by a pervading lack of trust in the people in our government, partially because we cannot seem to elect good people into office or if we did, not have them shot out. The movie clearly poses the question of whether we are going to continue as a nation based on just a war footing run by others or are we going to stop being selfish consumerists content to let others handle the pressing matters of the nation? Or will we like Garrison/JFK seek and find the truth, dare to be different and spend our lives doing things far more interesting like space colonization and make that our nation's reason for existance? We need a competent military-industrial complex or we will not survive as a nation, but we will not survive long if we don't get an enlightened citizenry that is able to understand the complexities of the world (not quibble in order to sit on one's rear) and assume the responsibility of our nation without disarming in the face of the external enemy. The internal enemies are tougher. I think we know who they are. We have met the enemy and he is us.
|
