Rating: 
Summary: From an assassination novice
Review: I have always been a little bit interested in why and how JFK was assassinated, and especially with who killed JFK. I saw this film when it first came out, but it was so controversial then that many people sought to debunk it. Like Orson Welles's "Citizen Kane" (Okay - it's good, but not THAT good.) JFK, and its director Oliver Stone was subjected to incredible criticism. Now that time has borne out Jim Garrison's version of events, JFK is even more accurate than originally thought.The directors cut, along with the deleted scenes, has Oliver Stone admitting that he was playing a little fast and loose with the facts, but in a more conservative direction most of the time. In other words, he downplayed some things that he believed to be true but could not adequately document. The extra disk with an update on the Garrison version, and the interview with the mysterious Mr. X is priceless. Be careful. If you buy this DVD (and watch it, of course) you will never look at our government in the same way again.
Rating:
Summary: great movie, awsome DVD extras
Review: first of all, JFK is probably one of the greatest and most contriversial movies EVER made. JFK was so contriversial, that the government themselves were scared about the threat this movie posed. because of all the uproar from the american people, the government formed an assassination committee which released certain files into the assassination of John Kennedy. the movie centers around Distric Attonrney Jim Garrisson's investigation into the murder of the century. you follow Garrisson's every move from his interrigation into the "most important witness in history" in David Ferrie to the conclussion of the trial. Great movie with many factual events and many interpretations of what could have happened. you can't fit all the information of the JFK assassination into a 3 hour movie, so you compress some of the information, like Oliver Stone did. the DVD features are great. you meet Donald Sutherland's character, X, and you see a 30 minute film on the new documents of the assassination. you also get to see a whole bunch of extra or deleted scenes. you have to watch the extra and delected scenes in order to appreciate what job the film editor and Oliver Stone did to make this masterpiece complete. great film that moves you in one way or another.
Rating:
Summary: Who knows?
Review: ...
As far the assasination itself, it would be stupid to ignore the facts, and the only fact necessary to realize that there was more than one shooter is the footage of the actual shooting itself. Any person with an iota of common sense can tell that the shots fired came from vastly different angles. That means more than one person and that means conspiracy. Now as for the rest of the speculations Oliver Stone indulges in, I doubt that a lot of it is factual. However, as a movie, its a masterpiece, highly ambitious and meticulously crafted.
How deep a conspiracy is a matter for discussion that will endure for the ages, but there is no question that one existed.
Rating: 
Summary: great conspiracy ideas, poor filmmaking
Review: I finally watched this movie last night, however I saw the original and not the directors cut. I was annoyed trying to watch this film. Someone should tell Stone that 1. Using recognizable actors for virtually every role is a major distraction, and 2. Extreme close-ups of actor's faces in the majority of the scenes are a poor excuse for film photography, and are a very lazy approach to directing in my opinion. When faced with a (somewhat) complicated plot like JFK has, it is imperative that you pay attention to everything spoken by each character. This became difficult for me early on, since I found myself playing "name that actor" every five minutes. Off the top of my head, these are some of the actors appearing in this film: Kevin Costner, Sissy Spacek, Michael Rooker, Jack Lemmon, Walter Mathieu, Newman from Seinfeld, Tommy Lee Jones, Donald Sutherland, Joe Pesci, Kevin Bacon, John Candy, Gary Oldman, the mother from Good Times (Esther Rolle?), Ed Asner, and Laurie Metcalf, and no doubt I have forgotten a few. I found it very distracting and detrimental to the film to include so many big name actors, and in fact the roles of many actors (Mathieu, Candy, and Sutherland) were too small to justify their "big name" appearance. Cameo appearances invariably detract from a film, and never fail to remind the viewer that "this is a movie". Film in its purest form takes the viewer into its world, and forces the audience to suspend their disbelief. Not once during this movie was the illusion created for me that this is anything other than "a movie". Perhaps it's a personal preference, but I find extreme close-ups of characters faces to be lazy directing. They have their place, but it's certainly not to be used throughout HALF the film! This is not an exaggeration. I thought Joe Pesci had a head the size of a basketball by the time this was over. The pock-marks on Tommy Lee Jones's face look big enough to swallow a Peterbilt truck. Donald Sutherland's bug-eyes looked about the size of the Astrodome. Filmmaking should include inventive photography and scene framing, and far less cut-cut-cut tendencies which Stone has. Example: during the scene in which Pesci spills his guts to Costner, Pesci's toupee falls down close to his eyebrows, then is further back on his forehead, then back to the eyebrows, then back up his forehead. The position of the toupee changes back and forth many times during the scene, and since the scene involves Pesci talking almost non-stop for the entire time (while the toupee moves without being touched, sometimes during the same sentence!), it cannot be explained as anything other than poor editing. No doubt the scene was filmed multiple times and the most favorable snippets taken for the final cut. This is normal for any film, but how is it that such a large project could have been edited so ineptly? The film also fails in that nothing really happens except in a flashback. I am not so shallow as to demand action all the time, and can accept that the story requires that it be told in this manner. However, most scenes have Costner asking questions of the other players, and while he's asking we see cuts-cuts-cuts by the director showing what transpired in the past. Fine. The problem lies in the fact that these flashbacks again serve to remind me that this is a movie. I watch Gary Oldman operating a hand printing press for 3 seconds, and wonder how much time was spent filming those three seconds. An hour? A day? Again, my disbelief was never suspended. Flashbacks are used with much better effect in American History X, which I would recommend to anyone who enjoyed JFK. I also found that the investigating characters were not believable at all, and served no purpose other than spew theories... no real emotion or character development involved. The scenes between Costner and his wife seemed tacked on and meaningless, ditto for the hay necked scene between Rooker and Costner where the investigating team disagrees with each other. Seems to me that having the dissention between investigators as well as friction between Costner and wife were nothing more than pitifully average attempts, and not compelling at all. I really did find the conspiracy involved to be quite intriguing. I have no reference point other than this film, however, but the ideas were put forth in a very interesting manner and Stone definitely got his point across. I'm not in any position to say what is true and what is not when it comes to Kennedy's assassination, but this film does force you to ask questions. One question I have is, if the conspiracy was undertaken to secure military funding, why do they not understand that CONGRESS makes the budget, NOT the President? I have been very critical of Stone's filmmaking in this review. One of the reasons is due to the packaging on the edition I own. The VHS box has a statement by the director indicating that he hopes the film forces people to make up their own minds (which can only happen if they blank-out his next comment, which states that the Warren Commission findings are a myth), among other things, and includes his PICTURE on the box! I took his bold statements as a challenge, and watched the film very intently to see if Stone could back up his own assessments of this work. He succeeds in providing a compelling plot, but fails when it comes to making a compelling FILM..
Rating:
Summary: Thank You Oliver Stone!
Review: It took many years for someone to finally let Jim Garrison's story be told in the proper and right way. For years, Jim was bashed and destroyed by the federal government and media. However after viewing this movie, one can't help but finally give Jim Garrison the credit he deserved for having the courage and guts to bring the jfk assasination to trial. There are alot of people who to this day question Jim, but as years pass, it is proven more and more that he was right in his theory of a conspiracy to kill the president. This movie is based on Jim Garrison's book "On The TraiL Of The Assasins" and also on Jim Marrs book "Crossfire: The Plot to Kill Kennedy". Once you view this movie, i suggest you read those 2 books and i'm sure you'll have all the facts you need. The special edition DVD includes many special features including the "new documents" which further proves Jim's theory. Jim Garrison was a very special man and Oliver Stone knew this and finally let Jim fight back against the people that belived his investigation was a fraud. Those people eat there words more and more as years go by. God Bless Jim Garrison, and God Bless You Oliver Stone!, for having enough courage to make this movie!
Rating:
Summary: American Fact, American Fiction
Review: In 1969, New Orleans D.A. Jim Garrison brought noted New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw to trial for conspiracy to murder President John F. Kennedy. To date, this is the only trial of any individual in reference to the Kennedy assasination. The 1991 Oliver Stone film JFK follows Garrison's investigation into the Kennedy assasination from the day of Kennedy's death to the conclusion of the trial. How much of the film should be taken as factual is a matter of heated debate. A great many historians and noted personalities dismiss both film and Garrison's conspiracy theory as inaccurate at best, urban legend and malicious gossip at worst; others consider the scenario outlined in the film unlikely, but praise it for raising legitimate questions about the Kennedy assasination; still others consider it very close to the truth. But no matter what position one takes re the film's conspiracy theory, it is very difficult to fault JFK as cinema. On that level it works extremely well indeed. The film has remarkable visual power. It is presented on different film stocks with various grains and color qualities, and these scenes--some of which last only seconds--combine with actual 1960s film footage such as the Zapruder film to create a fragmented look that gradually takes on the quality of a mosaic collage. The script, largely based on Garrison's book ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASINS, works in much the same fashion, shifting rapidly from scene to scene and back and forth in time. In combination, cinematography and script have a cumulative power that is most impressive, and Williams' haunting score adds greatly to the effect. The ensemble cast is easily one of the best I've ever seen. Kevin Costner is not, perhaps, ideally cast as Jim Garrison--but he plays in an extremely low-key manner completely devoid of any "star" trappings, and thus throws focus on the myriad of characters who swirl through the story. Gary Oldman is uncanny as Lee Harvey Oswald. His performance is such that you're often unsure if you watching Oldman or news footage of Oswald, and Brian Doyle-Murray achieves a similar effect with the smaller role of Jack Ruby. But perhaps the most memorable are the host of actors who appear in unlikely roles and who aquit themselves exceptionally well. Joe Pesci gives a typically aggressive performance in the strange role of a right-wing paramilitary homosexual, Kevin Bacon is completely unexpected and flawless as a hard-bitten gay prostitute, and Tommy Lee Jones is impressive as the influential Clay Shaw. Other memorable performers include Ed Asner, Jack Lemmon, Sissy Spacek, Laurie Metcalf, Sally Kirkland, and Donald Sutherland--and in a wicked twist of irony Jim Garrison himself appears as Justice Earl Warren. The package includes a number of extras, including an often interesting director's commentary, an interview with famous conspiracy theorist Prouty, and a documentary on certain intriguing records recently declassified by Congress as a direct result of this film's impact. Then there is the film itself, which includes several previously cut scenes and which is extremely well transferred to DVD. Historians and theorists will probably wrangle over the JFK assasination for decades, perhaps centuries to come. But whether you buy into Oliver Stone's scenario in whole, in part, or not at all, film is both extremely well-done and provocative to the max. If you want to stir conversation, this will do it. Recommended. --GFT (Amazon.com Reviewer)--
Rating:
Summary: One Good Movie, Two Controversies
Review: 1. What kind of evil force is behind Kennedy's assassination?
2. If Kennedy is alive and healthy, what the world would be today?
Read Michael A. Ledeen's "Machiavelli on Modern Leadership." Find out what kind of evil means were needed to fight the slave states back at that time.
Now, our new enimies are the big brother and the thought police(Orwell, 1984), the truth behind Kennedy's assassination is our best weapon.
Rating:
Summary: It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma!
Review: If you only ever listen to one commentary on a DVD, it should be this one. First off, I'll just let you know that I'm leaving my opinions out of this review. Just take three hours and sit down and watch this movie. If thats all you take from it, then that is fine. If, for some reason, this movie inspires you to head to your local library and write a few request letters to the National Archives, then you have truly found the meaning of Oliver Stone's film JFK. This is not a rewriting of history, it is an interpretation by a man who put 4 plus years of research into the work and uncovered as many new leads and facts as anyone had in the twenty years prior. It is amazing how many of the so-called "made up facts" and "rewriting of history" has been proven to be correct in the subsequent releases by the house sub-committee on assasinations and the freedom of information acts committee reviews following the release of the film in the early and mid 1990s. Thank Stone and this films controversialities for much of the information you now have about the JFK assasination. Put the facts together for yourself, they would expect you to believe everything you see and read. There are many books and resources on this and many websites where you can read or listen to the actual testimonies, I would ask all those who slam this film to do the same. Do a little free-minded investigation of your own. Good luck.
Rating: 
Summary: Incredibly well done, but rotten at the core
Review: First things first. JFK is a mesmerizing experience on many levels. There's a real sense of paranoid dread at work here, which makes me think Stone would be a fine director of straight up Hitchcockian-style thrillers. The acting is usually quite excellent. The cinematography is top-notch. The use of music is sublime, as is the use of old footage and different film stocks. Technically it's a marvel. But the film is really just [junk] underneath the surface. The story's treatment of Clay Shaw borders on pure slander. What you don't get from the film is that Shaw was a businessman who had the misfortune of crossing into Garrison's sights, a man who became a magnet for the despicable fella's paranoid delusions. No evidence points to Shaw being involved at all, and the final 'note' in the film (Shaw worked for the CIA) is misleading, since his involvement with the agency was reasonably innocuous and not at all covert. He was not an agent in black ops, but a guy who was debriefed by the CIA after a couple trips to Europe, something literally thousands of businessmen did. That's just one of dozens and dozens of half-truths or outright lies in the film. The 'alternative myth', as Stone calls it, shouldn't include innocent men. I find the film entertaining, but infuriating. I recognize its artistry but cannot abide by its stupidity. And it really steams me when I discuss the whole JFK assassination with people and they refer to this film as source material. Here's a hint: this is not a documentary, it's a movie. Many of the characters here did not exist. Many of the scenes were made up for dramatic license. Jim Garrison was in real life one of the most corrupt politicians of his day. The movie doesn't answer questions at all, it raises them and throws up red herrings that Stone must know are fictional. Anyone with the time to do the rudimentary research will know what's true in this film and what is not. And frankly, almost nothing here is true. But it's one to see for the film, not the content.
Rating: 
Summary: The day the Heavens fell on Oliver Stone.
Review: The most trusted man in America Mr Walter Cronkite called the film JFK "a tissue of lies".Indeed,from the false opening scenes where a man cops a beating for'snooping'(he was actually beaten over a gambling debt)to the final scene where Garrison leaves the court with his family(he was actually in his office when the verdict was announced),the film is a lie followed by more lies.
We have scenes where a woman in a hospital warns about the upcoming assassination(never happened)to a co-conspirator and possible witness found murdered(never happened).
We have Garrison going to Washington to meet an officer that was in New Zealand at the time of the shooting(never happened).
The court statement that the shots lasted 5.6 seconds is false and the Zapruder film clearly shows that 9 seconds went by.
The sound evidence about other shots being fired,mentioned at the end of the film,has now been found to be in error.
But the best example of what a dishonest film and director we have here is the 'grassy knoll' scene.
Try as he might,director Oliver Stone could not find a gun that would make enough smoke to be seen by witnesses.
Now,does it occur to Oliver Stone that if he couldn't find such a gun then why would an assassin use one? No,instead Oliver then got a man to blow smoke from a bellows to simulate the smoke. Some critics say that sums up the film,full of hot air.The film ends with a line written by a Hollywood writer-Garrison is shown saying "let the truth be known or the Heavens fall".Mr Garrison wasn't even at the court at the time of the announced verdict,he was in his office at the time.Mr Stone has the gall to talk about truth when he makes up facts.
Oliver Stone has since made other films that have had their historical accuracy questioned.
|
