Rating: 
Summary: A Day That No One Will Forget
Review: JFK tries tries to answer some very difficult questions about what really happened on November 22 1963. Critics have said that Director Oliver Stone's film presents a "slanted" view of history. While that may or may not be the case, I'm struck by how well the film is put together, regardless of whether you choose to believe the whole film or not.The script is based on 2 books about the case and centers around New Orleans DA Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner, in his best role to date) and his investigation into the assasination. Gary Oldman gives a great performance as would be killer Lee Harvey Oswald The other cast members are top notch too. The movie is filled with surprising cameos from Edward Asner Jack Lemmon Walter Mathau and the "real life" Jim Garrison among others. From a technical standpoint, as I hinted at earlier, the very complex movie is just about flawless. It boasts some of the best editing work I have ever seen on film. The score by John Williams is one of his best and very fitting. The director's cut comes in at 3 hours 27 minutes. You'd never know it. Stone draws you in and the film goes by pretty quickly. This latest 2 disc DVD set is actually the second of its kind released. The bonus materials are pretty much the same, save for a newly created feature lentgth documentary, on the film and the historical events. It's well made and is worth a look. Disc 2 also has at least 30 minutes worth of deleted scenes-with optional commentary by Stone-going even beyond the 17 additional minutes of the director's cut presented on disc 1. The main audio commentary track by Stone offers not only facinating details on making the film but also provides information about the people places and events depicted in the movie. There's a facinating interview with the real life Mr.(played by Donald Sutherland in the movie). There is also a 30 minute update about the declassification of documents related to the investigation that happened as a direct result of the film's release. Multimedia essays from various writers and DVD-ROM material, like reviews of the film, a theatrical trailer sampler, additional essays and web links If you already own the previous 2 disc set, this latest release may not be worth a rebuy. But it's definately worth it if you like the film a lot. You may not agree with everything Stone's got to say in his movie about the subject. However, even if you don't, you still have to admire him for making a complex film entertaining and engrossing, while at the same time giving viewers a lot to think about after they watch it
Rating:
Summary: The Art of Fear
Review: No matter which side of the fence you're on regarding the JFK assassination, Oliver Stone's JFK is a provocative and frightening film which, as critic David Denby said, "would scare God." Let the critics be damned who say the film ought to be dismissed because it manipulates facts and history. The same could be said about TORA! TORA! TORA!, THE LONGEST DAY, and PATTON, but the critics were strangely silent about the liberties those filmmakers took with history. And although there is no mistaking what Stone thinks happened on 11/22/63, Kevin Costner, as Jim Garrison, repeats countless times, "Let us speculate...", "We can assume...", "What if...". This is a movie about speculating, and about the frightful implications of the possible results. As others have mentioned, most of the casting and the performances are perfect. For my money, though, nothing beats British-born Gary Oldman's convincing portrayal of Lee Harvey Oswald. I was stunned by his brilliance. Tommy Lee Jones, Kevin Bacon, Cissy Spacek, and the dozens of other cameos were equally beyond amazing (although, at times, Joe Pesci sounded more like he was from New Jersey than New Orleans). In this edition of the film are scenes that were edited out from the version released in theatres, and you'll easily understand why. They aren't bad scenes at all (the scene of John LaRoquette and Mort Sahl as thinly disguised Johnny Carson and Ed McMahon is very good) but they don't add much to the story. The accompanying documentary "Beyond JFK" is interesting but flat when compared with Stone's film. Still it's worth a view. The real stars of this show, however, are Oliver Stone's meticulous direction, Robert Richardson's eerie and engaging cinematography (for which he won an Oscar), and the frenetic editing job by Joe Hutshing and Pietro Scalia (also Oscar winners). This team flawlessly paces this three-hour film: rushing it up at the dramatic moments, cooling it down when the audience needs to digest the data. Like Scorsese's RAGING BULL, the filmmakers employ several types of cameras and films, moving from dolly shots to hand-held, color to black-and-white, grainy to clean. The effect is a dazzling and haunting recreation of what may have happened in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 and what that day did to those, like Jim Garrison, who attempted to find the truth.
Rating: 
Summary: BE CAREFUL if buying the 1991 release of JFK
Review: Not only does the box incorrectly advertise that this is an anamorphic movie, it isn't even a full widescreen movie!!! The movies starts out in widescreen, switches to full screen for historic footage, then back to widescreen. I immediately returned this one to the store from which I purchased it. Where are the heads of the people who produce this subpar product???
Rating:
Summary: One man's hope to find the truth
Review: A conspiracy of who shot JFK and how will the killer/s get caught, hard to understand and the only movie made with 18 different suspects and uncanny charecters and lawers seeking for the truth of a past murder that with all the facts can never be solved due to the corruption of corperate america. Everybody might have been on it and the hunt for the killer of JFK will reopen in the year 2029 by the federal council of Washington. This was a great movie you'll love to watch and conspicuiousy is in the air of Los Angles and Houston during the 60s, how America fell after the death of one of the greatest presidents in American History and how Cuba came back. One of Oliver Stone's best movies and a remarkable outlook of how the most famous figure left the earth. Outstanding.
Rating:
Summary: JFK (Director's Cut)
Review: I'm surprised, after 40 years, that so much effort is still made to discredit Jim Garrison's investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy and Oliver Stone's telling movie "JFK". Peter Jennings and ABC made a "heroic" effort to convince viewers that Oswald was a "lone nut" assassin. Even PBS sold out with their "Frontline" program, and a couple of others, about the JFK assassination. As someone who has studied the JFK assassination, as an avocation, since 1968, I highly recommend Oliver Stone's "JFK" as an excellent starting point to understanding why Kennedy was assassinated. Stone had to abbreviate the story. How could any film cover everything that happened from before Kennedy took the oath of office in January of 1961 until the trial of Clay Shaw in 1969 in a couple of hours? It isn't possible unless some artistic license is taken. An example is "X", the mysterious military colonel, who was based on more than one person but primarily on Col. L. Fletcher Prouty (who wrote the excellent book "JFK: The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy". The conversation, in the film "JFK", between "X" and District Attorney Jim Garrison, never took place. But it precisely summed up events which happened over a long period of time in the planning and execution of the assassination. If not for these kinds of artistic license a movie spanning nearly nine years would have to be several years long to include all details exactly as they happened. The jury in the Clay Shaw trial believed there was a conspiracy, they just didn't have the proof they needed to convict Shaw. And it was no wonder they couldn't. The FBI, CIA and many other government entities did everything they could to thwart Garrison's investigation. His offices were bugged, "volunteers" removed stacks of documents, The FBI threatened his investigators, witnesses were murdered, Governors refused to extradite key witnesses, the judge wouldn't allow the police officer who booked Clay Shaw to testify that Shaw said he used the alias Clay Bertrand when being booked ... no D.A. could win a case under those circumstances. Even Johnny Carson, on NBC's "The Tonight Show", attacked Garrison over national television. Garrison did a remarkable job, under the circumstances, of coming close to solving the assassination. Garrison's book "On The Trail of the Assassins: My Investigation and Prosecution of the Murder of President Kennedy" illustrates exactly what he was up against in bringing Clay Shaw to trial. If you can find this book buy it. Why is the Kennedy assassination of any importance 40 years later? You have to understand what happened then to understand what has happened since. Why would the government, the media, authors, television program producers and others want to make you belive a lone nut assassin killed our President? Why did so many witnesses die so quickly? Why was evidence destroyed and modified? Why was Oswald silenced by Jack Ruby? Why was Oswald given Russian language training while in the Marines, sent to work at the largest CIA military base in Asia, then allowed to "defect" to Russia? Why would our government stand by and do nothing when Oswald tells the U.S. Embassy that he wants to give up his U.S. citizenship and says he is going to give Russia secrets about our U2 flights? Why would he be allowed to do that? Why, when he wanted to come back to the U.S., was he promptly given his passport, never debriefed, and even given travel money by a CIA cover group? Why wouldn't he be charged with treason? Why did Oswald pretend to be pro-Castro working out of the office of Guy Banister, a private investigator who was former ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence) and former head of the Chicago office of the F.B.I.? Why would Oswald hang out in a place within a couple of blocks of the Secret Service, the F.B.I., the C.I.A. and the O.N.I. offices in New Orleans if he had truly defected to Russia? Was Oswald being set up to be the "patsy" for the assassination? Why didn't the Warren Commission take Jack Ruby to Washington, D.C. where he said he could tell the truth? Why did Ruby suddenly contract a virulent form of colon cancer in his lungs just after being told he would get a re-trial? He claimed he was being injected with cancer and he died within a couple of months. Why would JFK's brain disapper from the National Archives along with autopsy photos? Why did LBJ have the limousine flown to Ford Motor Company and the windshield with a bullet hole removed and destroyed, as well as the carpet and parts of the interior replaced destroying that evidence. These, and hundreds of other questions, will come up as you watch "JFK" and do some searching on the internet.
Rating:
Summary: One of the best films of the 1990's
Review: It has been said that JFK is Oliver Stone's favorite of his films, and I can understand why. In many ways, it is his best. It is certainly his most ambitious. Even if taken only in terms of its visuals and editing, this was an ambitious undertaking. And he's taken it a step further. He has taken the dry minutiae (whether you can give a label of "hard facts" is debatable) and not only kept it from being boring, but has also made it compelling, gripping cinema. Three hours go by without a yawn. Culled from two major sources--On the Trail of the Assassins by Jim Garrison (who is the lead character played by Kevin Costner) and Crossfire by Jim Marrs--as well as other governmental records and his own interviews, JFK is an almost complete picture of what information was available at the time. Also involved in the film's riveting status is the all-star cast Stone has hired to portray important characters. A listing of actors in this film includes: Tommy Lee Jones, Joe Pesci, Sissy Spacek, Kevin Bacon, Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau, John Candy, and Gary Oldman. Donald Sutherland (playing "X," a character based on Fletcher Prouty) gives a ten-minute monologue that should have been dull as dishwater, but it is so chock-full of information combined with intercut dramatizations and John Williams stunning score, that it is a pivotal (and my favorite) scene in the movie. There is so much information involved here that it could have easily become confusing or overwhelming but Stone and co-screenwriter Zachary Sklar have assembled the pieces in a narrative form--often having the information come out in the form of character interviews--and doesn't talk down to its audience. Also, the mix of film types--grainy documentary-like footage, differences in lighting and colored filters mixed with footage from the Zapruder film--was surely a step toward the making of Natural Born Killers a scant few years later. My only question lies in Kevin Costner's performance as New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison. He gives his normal measured performance, but, apart from a workable Louisiana accent, never really delves into the character. Perhaps this is deliberate. After all, Garrison is only the means Stone uses to tell his story (putting other people's theories in the character's mouth along the way), so why wouldn't the actor playing him be just as much of a conduit? A familiar face that we have come to trust through his relationships with other quality films playing a man who we need to trust for the film to work. If this is so, it also explains the stunt casting of the key personalities: give us familiar faces so we don't have to learn new identities, we can just take what we know of their past performances and subconsciously layer that over the new ones. I could keep going on but suffice to say that JFK is one of my favorite films and I recommend it highly as entertainment--regardless of what you think about the cause of the assassination. (Other good reading on the subject is Don DeLillo's novel Libra, which suggests that Lee Harvey Oswald was hired to pull off an unsuccessful attempt on the president in order to blame it on Cuba and warn Kennedy to change his administration's relationship with that country.)
Rating:
Summary: The third time's the charm...
Review: They say that the third time's the charm and this certainly applies to the latest DVD version of Oliver Stone's film, JFK. Previous incarnations included a movie-only edition spread over two sides of a single disc and an extras-packed two DVD set, part of the Oliver Stone Collection that came out a few years ago. What's new on this one? Aside from all the extras from the last version, only a feature-length documentary and that's it. All of the extras on the previous edition are included as is one new addition, a 90-minute documentary entitled, "Beyond JFK: The Question of Conspiracy." It uses Stone's film as a jumping off point in which to revisit the events of and surrounding the assassination and examine the cult of conspiracy theorists. There is some fantastic on the set footage of Stone in action and interviews with most of the star-studded cast. Detractors of the film (Walter Cronkite and a film critic from The New York Times) and its supporters (Robert MacNeil from the MacNeil/Lehr Report) are interviewed, providing an excellent snapshot of the controversy that swirled around the film at the time. This is an excellent, in-depth documentary that even includes interviews with Marina Oswald and fascinating archival footage of the real Oswald, including his infamous death on live TV at the hands of Jack Ruby. For casual fans of the film who already own the Oliver Stone Collection version, buying this new one probably isn't really worth it. For hardcore fans of JFK and Stone, the inclusion of this impressive documentary is worth the price of purchase. For completists, however, one glaring omission is AMC's excellent episode of Backstory that was done on the making of the film. Perhaps this will be included on yet another future edition of this film. That being said, this is a solid two DVD set for a landmark film. JFK is essential viewing for any fan of cinema.
Rating:
Summary: A Day That No One Will Forget
Review: JFK tries tries to answer some very difficult questions about what really happened on November 22 1963. Critics have said that Director Oliver Stone's film presents a "slanted" view of history. While that may or may not be the case, I'm struck by how well the film is put together, regardless of whether you choose to believe the whole film or not. The script is based on 2 books about the case and centers around New Orleans DA Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner, in his best role to date) and his investigation into the assasination. Gary Oldman gives a great performance as would be killer Lee Harvey Oswald The other cast members are top notch too. The movie is filled with surprising cameos from Edward Asner Jack Lemmon Walter Mathau and the "real life" Jim Garrison among others. From a technical standpoint, as I hinted at earlier, the very complex movie is just about flawless. It boasts some of the best editing work I have ever seen on film. The score by John Williams is one of his best and very fitting. The director's cut comes in at 3 hours 27 minutes. You'd never know it. Stone draws you in and the film goes by pretty quickly. This latest 2 disc DVD set is actually the second of its kind released. The bonus materials are pretty much the same, save for a newly created feature lentgth documentary, on the film and the historical events. It's well made and is worth a look. Disc 2 also has at least 30 minutes worth of deleted scenes-with optional commentary by Stone-going even beyond the 17 additional minutes of the director's cut presented on disc 1. The main audio commentary track by Stone offers not only facinating details on making the film but also provides information about the people places and events depicted in the movie. There's a facinating interview with the real life Mr.(played by Donald Sutherland in the movie). There is also a 30 minute update about the declassification of documents related to the investigation that happened as a direct result of the film's release. Multimedia essays from various writers and DVD-ROM material, like reviews of the film, a theatrical trailer sampler, additional essays and web links If you already own the previous 2 disc set, this latest release may not be worth a rebuy. But it's definately worth it if you like the film a lot. You may not agree with everything Stone's got to say in his movie about the subject. However, even if you don't, you still have to admire him for making a complex film entertaining and engrossing, while at the same time giving viewers a lot to think about after they watch it
Rating:
Summary: 11-22-63-The Day Media Accountability Vanished
Review: First of all, most people know that this is one, if not the most controversial films ever made and it's brilliantly, photographed and re-enacted, and I would like to add..a beuatiful, haunting musical score by John Williams that I don't beleve is on CD, but defnitely should.Rather than give my opinion of the film, I'll mention a few important things the reader may not know The reporters who were in Dallas that day completely blew it: Dan Rather(CBS News) who being the only journalist to see the film in 1963..misstated the contents by saying" Kennedy's head went forward when he was shot" Obviously, the film shows the exact opposite-Bob Schieffer(CBS News) Tom Wicker(NY Times) Hugh Sidey(Time) & Hugh Aynesworth(Newsweek-Wash. Times) All these gentlemen that were there that are so confident either Oswald acted alone, or was the only shooter in a small amorphous conspiracy, did they ever talk to Jean Hill one of the closest eyewitesses who heard 4-6 shots that day & at least one shot from the Knoll and signed an affadavit to that effect 11-22-63, how about Bill Newman and his wife the closest witnesses on the sidewalk? He thought all the shots came over his head from the knoll, and he had been in the military, how about officer James Chaney closest motorcycle patrolmen to Kennedy's motorcade- he told a reporter in the hall 11-22-63 that " he was shot in the face", yet was never interviewed by anyone else? How about patrolmen Jackson, who corroborated Chaney, by saying in an FBI interview" the President was shot between the ear and temple" which, is exactly what Marilyn Stzman said, who was on the pedestal with Abe Zapruder to take the famous home movie. Groundskeeper Hudson & Zapruder said vaguely in their initial interviews about the direction of shots as" behind them..behind them is the Railroad Yards behind the Grassy Knoll, to their left some 250 ft. is the Schoolbook Depository. No reporters ever interviewed these people! How about Texas Patrolman Hurschel Jacks who at Parkland Hospital saw the President before the Secret Service put a coat over him as they were removing him from the car, he signed an affadavit that day" their appeared to have been an entrance wound in the right temple" he was only a few feet away. Both Charles Brehm & reporter Altgens 2 of the other closest witnesses, both initially thought a shot, or shots came from the knoll, and this is documented, though later they said the shots came from the rear. Did these Reporters ever talk to the Dallas Doctors who were unanimous in their belief the throat wound was on of entrance? No! no record of it, also, their descriptions of the head wound are incompatible wth a shot from the rear.unless Oswald was firing a Bazooka, since there was a large hole extending into the back of the head, showing the effects that suggest an explosive bullet, not a Full Metal Jacketed one. Here's a few bombshells by The Records Review Board in resonse to this film- 1. X-Ray Tech Custer says Kennedy shot from front in head, and describes a back wound at t-3/4..to low for single bullet theory.2. Autopsy Assistant Jenkins- describes a headshot from the front & single bullet theory not true 3.Both FBI agents at Autopsy- do not believe Single Bullet Theory, & question" doctoring" of autopsy photos,4. Captain Lipsey"told by his superior officer Gen Wehle" to keep your eyes at all times on the body" says" there were 3 shots that struck the President, not two as in officialdom 5. Dr. Grossman who now says" Oswald acted alone" told the Review Board" that's completely wrong" in regard to being shown the back of the head autopsy pictures showing an intact "back of the head" These are just a few of many more bombshells in the medical and ballistic evidence, so remember this when someone prominent in the media tells you this is a simple case.
Rating:
Summary: A RIDDLE WRAPPED INSIDE AN ENIGMA
Review: What really has set the Left back is not just the failure of this film medium to accomplish their goals, but also the lack of faith accorded college professors, school textbooks, and mainstream news. So who is left to tell the real story?
Weeeeeell, my friends, we are out there. We have been waiting in the wings all these years, gathering the facts in silence, not showing our hand, waiting for judgment day. The day of reckoning is upon us. Let freedom reign.
As for "JFK", it is a complicated piece of fiction that would require some real research to effectively discredit all of its lies. What it did in the theatre was have one asking, "Jeez, did that really happen?" or "My God, is this true?" or "Holy cow, I can't believe this could be." It is major sensory overload. Innocent civilians who knew things are killed. Deception and murder are used to cover up the sordid deeds. The film requires several viewings, and frankly time, probably years, to unravel it. What happens is that various reviews, reports from historical figures and historians are read and pieced together. After a while the discovery is made that a particular "witness" never existed, a certain "police officer" is a figment of Stone's imagination, smoke in the trees, conversations, special ops guys with the inside scoop (particular "Major X" played by Canadian Donald Sutherland) are invented out of whole cloth. A proposition is one thing, but "JFK" is "Alice in Wonderland", a "riddle wrapped inside an enigma, tied by a puzzle" or whatever it is Joe Pesci says. It is exhausting.
So who killed JFK? Oh, maaaaan! Stone's answer, as best I can tell, was Lyndon Johnson, in league with the joint chiefs, because Kennedy wanted out of Vietnam and they wanted in (because American industry needed the war?), working with right wing Birchers, who were part of rogue elements of the CIA (?), who were a "track," whatever that is, that could not be stopped because it was an inexorable connection starting in Guatemala ("good"), Iran ("good"), and Bay of Pigs ("not so good"), that had become dominated by Cuban exile "Republicans," working in league with the Soviets (KGB?), who recruited Lee Harvey Oswald, who learned to shoot in the Marines, who lived and married in Russia then came back, who promoted Marxism but was funded by Birchers (?), who was a patsy for the Dallas Mafia, who had Oswald-lookalikes say incriminating things, who worked with JFK, who worked with La Casa Nostra (who turned on him?), who were tied to Naval Intelligence (?), who operated out of a corner in New Orleans in which the Feds, the NIS and somebody else all had offices, who were tied to right wing homosexual businessmen, defrocked priests, gay prostitutes and guys with tempers like Ed Asner, whose activities were known by corrupt New Orleans lawyers and politicians, who were in league with the New Orleans International Trade Mart or something like that, protected by Dallas strip club owners, who hatched a plan that involved Cubans training in the Florida swamps or Latin America by gay militia commandos, who bought a bad Italian rifle with a bolt action release via mail instead of purchasing a better weapon through the black market or a store, who gave it to Oswald, who may or may not have fired at JFK but could not possibly have hit his mark from the Texas Book Depository, who with Secret Service agents working to kill the President had assassins disguised as police officers and bums in the bushes, a car wreck lot and a grassy knoll, and created a triangulated cross-fire that killed the President then got away.
Now, friends and neighbors, after all of that, at no time does Mr. Stone suggest that the assassination was the work of a fellow he later visited and said was a great man, named Fidel Castro, who is the most likely suspect.
Res ipsa loquiter.
Castro and the mob? Maybe. The confusion of Stone's plot twists is highly, precisely and to quintessential effect that with which the real killers want. Stone's film vastly hurts the attempt to learn the truth. He raises plenty of legitimate questions, mainly regarding the so-called "magic bullet," and he operates on at least one fairly solid foundation, which is that the Zapruder film seems to show more than one shooter. Saying Oswald was not a lone gunman is a premise I can give credence to, but beyond that God knows.
One thing is puzzling, and that is that in all the years since nobody has "stepped forward." Every so often somebody shows up on Larry King Live and says his father, usually a "Dallas cop," was the shooter, but these stories always have the crackpot feel to them. I want a deathbed confession from a Cuban, one of Sam Giancana's guys, something solid. When all the smoke clears, you still have a Communist sympathizer, Oswald, killing a President who just humiliated Kruschev over the Bay of Pigs, is a threat to Castro and is building up troops to fight Commies in Vietnam. It is plausible he had help and they were on the Grassy Knoll, they got away and Jack Ruby killed Oswald to shut him up. Maybe a little too convenient. The Warren Commission report came out only one year later, not enough time to sort out everything. The Church hearings were too open to get the real stuff beyond salacious sex. Secret CIA/FBI investigations might have been the only real answer, and who knows, maybe they were conducted, and maybe the gullible public cannot handle the truth. Who knows? Not Oliver Stone. (...)
|
