JFK

Rating:
Summary: Take This For What It Really Is
Review: Oliver Stone is a brilliant director and storyteller. If you understand going in that his story is not fact, but a collection of unrelated conincidences, unsubstantiated anecdotes and pure rumor that is woven together as a fictional account of the Kennedy assassination you will do fine. If you accept the film as gospel, you are doomed and there is nothing we can do to save you.

Based partially on the memoirs of Jim Garrison (the Oliver Stone of the legal world) and partially on the unsubstantiated claims of others, this film paints a dark and bizarre view of the most important event in our nation's last sixty years. It is as fascinating to watch as it is depressing to contemplate.

In this world, most everyone in the federal government at the time (including, apparently, the President's family) actively participates in a world-wide coverup for a group of cross-dressing anti-communists who murder John Kennedy for revenge. Those that do not aid the coverup are actively involved in the plan itself. Their allies may or may not include the Communists themselves, Organized Crime and Texas state and local governments. They would also have to have the ongoing help of a good number of those that have held power in each of those groups from 1963 to the present as well.

Coming away from the film, you recognize Stone's genius as a storyteller and want more. You should also recognize that what you saw was a story - the greatest urban legend of all time.

If Stone must have a conspiracy to investigate, here's one: the CIA gives him the idea for "Any Given Sunday" as payback.

Rating:
Summary: A Remarkable Film, a remarkable DVD
Review: Oliver Stone's "JFK" is a remarkable film that is too often overshadowed by the very real events upon which it is based and by the perceived political agenda of its director. But, as Stone himself has stated on numerous occasions, the movie is not meant to stand as a definitive historical document but rather as an alternative look at what might have happened on that fateful day in Dallas given the conflicting and incomplete information that came out of the official final word on President Kennedy's assassination, The Warren Commission Report. Much of "JFK" is based on known fact but Stone has taken it one step further and extrapolated out a variety of possible realities based on the many unanswered questions and perplexing coincidences that surround the case.

The central character in the film is Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner), the district attorney from New Orleans who actually brought the case of the Kennedy assassination to court -- some three years after the fact. Although his attempt to convict Clay Shaw (Tommy Lee Jones) of conspiracy in the assassination of the president was doomed to failure, the facts that he uncovered, and continued to pursue through his later writings on the subject, gave a certain legitimacy to the claims by conspiracy theorists that all was not right with the official investigation. Through countless scenes, the government's assertion that Lee Harvey Oswald (Gary Oldman) was in fact a lone gunman who acted of his own volition and with no outside help is continuously under siege. By the end of the film, every preconceived notion that the viewer may have had regarding the assassination has been called into question.

In addition to the actors mentioned above, "JFK" is a virtual who's-who of Hollywood talent. Rounding out the cast are Kevin Bacon, Walter Matthau, Jack Lemmon, Donald Sutherland, Sissy Spacek, Joe Pesci, and even John Candy. In all instances, the performers bring a certain degree of mystery to their roles that really reinforces the overall disconcerting feel of the film.

Enough about the film already, what about the DVD? Well, as many of you know, Warner first released "JFK" as a movie-only edition back in 1997. While this DVD featured Oliver Stone's preferred director's cut of the movie with some 17 additional minutes of footage reinserted, the video was non-anamorphic and the audio was a merely serviceable DD 2.0 mix. In addition, the lack of any extras was a shame and the disc itself was a dreaded "flipper". With this new release, Warner has addressed all of these issues and "JFK" is at long last available in a fine special edition DVD.

"JFK" is presented in anamorphic widescreen, preserving the 2.35:1 aspect ratio of the original theatrical release. Sharpness is usually quite solid although the extensive use of filters lends a somewhat soft appearance to the image in a number of scenes. Black levels and contrast are good with only the darkest of scenes losing fine shadow detail. Colors are accurate and exhibit no signs of bleeding but the palette is, for the most part, somewhat muted. I could spot no instances of compression artifacts and the edge enhancement that plagued the original release is mercifully gone. The video is a marked improvement over the old release and, while it isn't a perfect transfer, I could find no glaring issues with the work Warner has done preparing this release.

Just as the video has been upgraded for the new special edition, so too has the audio. Replacing the fairly good Dolby Digital 2.0 mix on the previous release is a brand-new 5.1 channel Dolby Digital soundtrack available in both English and French. The increase in dynamic range afforded by this new mix really makes John Williams's moving score come alive and adds some overall depth to the soundtrack as a whole. Surround use is frequent and well-integrated and dialogue is always clear and firmly anchored to the center. While this new 5.1 mix certainly won't give the best soundtracks a run for their money, it is a fair improvement over the previous release and is very well done.

Now we come to that facet of DVD that truly defines a special edition -- the extras. Seeing as how the film itself is quite long, Warner has taken the step of making "JFK" into a two-disc release in order to accommodate the plentiful bonus features.

Disc One features the movie itself and provides a very engaging commentary track by Oliver Stone. I've listened to a number of his commentaries and they are always informative, entertaining, and full of great personal and professional recollections. "JFK" is no exception as the director delves into every facet of this remarkable film. His tone is always conversational which makes the three plus hours spent listening to him more enjoyable than one might expect. Rounding out the extras on Disc One are cast and crew bios and filmographies as well as a list of the awards that "JFK" has garnered.

Disc Two is where the real strength of this special edition resides. First up is a 15 minute interview entitled "Meet Mr. X: The Personality and Thoughts of Fletcher Prouty" in which the real-life Mr. X discusses his particular take on the assassination. Played by Donald Sutherland in the movie, Mr. X was to Jim Garrison as Deep Throat was to Bob Woodward -- a shadowy source who provides the hints needed to further the investigation. Next up is "Assassination Update: The New Documents," a 30 minute multimedia essay hosted by noted conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio. Combining text, photographs, and video clips, Mr. DiEugenio delivers a very riveting, if not a bit overwhelming and scattershot, look at the facts of the case that have come to light in recent years.

Are we done yet? Not even close. Also included on Disc Two is 50 minutes of additional footage that can be viewed individually or as a complete set and with or without Oliver Stone's accompanying commentary. Combine this with the 17 minutes previously added back into the film and you have well over an hour of footage that wasn't in the original theatrical release. As is the case with some of the scenes that were added to the director's cut, much of this bonus material is redundant. Nevertheless, there are some real gems here and it's great that this abundance of cutting room casualties are included on the DVD.

Rounding out the extras on Disc Two is the DVD-ROM content that features links to a number of websites, a series of theatrical trailers for this and other Oliver Stone films, print reviews of "JFK," and a link for a future online chat with Oliver Stone. Whew!

Now we turn to an aspect of this DVD that I rarely mention in a review -- the packaging. "JFK" is presented in Warner's preferred snapper case, which should come as no surprise. But, in order to accommodate the two discs, a pocket has been added to the cover flap and Disc Two resides there in a flimsy little envelope. It really is a screwy method that may be a bit rough on that second disc over the long haul so it's best that the buyer be forewarned. But, on the plus side, Warner has taken the negative comments about this packaging to heart and have promised to come up with a better alternative for any future two disc sets.

"JFK" is a thought-provoking film that remains almost as big a conundrum as the subject upon which it is based. Many viewers and critics see it as nothing more than another political rant by that crazy Ollie Stone. Others have had their eyes opened wide upon seeing it and no longer view the world in quite the same rosy light as they once did. Skillfully filmed, well-acted, and at its very core quite unsettling, "JFK" stands as one of Oliver Stone's finest films.

And what better way to treat a great film than with a brand new two disc special edition DVD? Featuring vastly improved video and audio, the new release presents "JFK" in fine fashion. The wealth of bonus features that examine the film itself, and the real-life events it revolves around, add some much needed depth to the understanding of this pivotal moment in American history. Throw in the fact that Warner is offering this two disc special edition for much less than some studios sell their bare-bones DVDs for and you have a sure-fire winner. The film and the DVD both come very highly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: One of the Great Docu-Dramas of All Time
Review: Stone's masterpiece is a marvelous work of cinematic choreography and script-writing. It is equally a profound contribution to media genres which strive to stimulate thought rather than repress it.

The film's importance does not simply end with the movie theaters and reviews. And it is no less significant that even cable-TV channels seem bent on avoiding the film. It had a deep impact on American government, provoking a landmark piece of legislation in the US Congress, passing as the 1992 JFK Records Collection Act. The Act itself was unprecedented, mandating a unilateral review of classified government documents across the entire cabinet-agency landscape by independent academics appointed by the President.

Immediately after the preview of the film before both houses of Congress -- and before its release to the public -- critics scrambled to destroy the film, arguing that it was filled with misleading fiction about Dealey Plaza and that it shamefully revised history, placing a false understanding of historical fact in the minds of America's young. Let's examine those criticisms carefully.

Stone used dramatic artifice to protect living witnesses of the events surrounding Dealey Plaza, and to chronologically relocate factual correspondence and exchanges between the two star consultants to his film-making -- Jim Garrison (d. 1991) and Col. L. Fletcher Prouty (d. June 5, 2001). He replaced Perry Russo -- Garrison's keystone witness in the 1968 Clay Shaw trial -- with a fictional homosexual prostitute in Angola Prison, portrayed by Kevin Bacon in the film. Russo got a bit part in the barroom scene at the beginning of the film. The correspondence between Garrison and Prouty occurred between the late 1970s and the early 1990s, so Stone moved it into the context of the Clay Shaw trial with the fictional meeting of Garrison and "Mr. X" near the Lincoln Memorial on the Capital Mall.

Except with some minor liberties taken with the film's reporting about the death of Eladio del Valle, it dramatically presents the Shaw trial in a reasonably accurate evidentiary context. The film draws much material from Garrison's own book -- "On the Trail of Assassins" (1987).

Viewers who wish to expand their understanding of the facts and suspicions presented in the film will do well to pause the second VHS tape during the black-and-white flashback recalled by Mr. X of the phone conversation presented from the perspective of "General Y's" office, so that they can read the US government nameplate behind the vase on the General's bookcase. With the passage of the Records Act, several witnesses and investigators came forward to publish their memoirs, absolved of their non-disclosure agreements with the government. Viewers who want to examine the publications precipitated by the film can begin with Mr. X and read Prouty's memoir -- "JFK: The CIA, Vietnam and the Assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy" (2nd ed. 1996).

Some viewers and many dabblers in the forthcoming literature of the assassination are glib in their recommendation of Gerald Posner's "Case Closed" -- a work that is suspect just in its timeliness, and which can be torn apart with new evidence and facts. I argue that Stone, despite his many detractors and criticisms of the "Natural Born Killers" film satire, is a film-maker committed to the Truth. That "JFK" merely presented pointers on the assassination-research compass to a general audience was sufficient to Stone's apparent purpose. Its instrumental role in catalyzing the Records Act is irrefutable history. To say he took some liberties with his material is equivalent to saying that Shakespeare adapted the history of Julius Caesar and took advantage of the Elizabethan stage as a money-grubbing opportunist.

The difficulty with the history of Dealey Plaza is the political layer of reality which surrounds it. When the trail-signs enter the exchange of political dialogue about the Dealey Plaza history, certain partisan "believers" either tend to run away or throw stones -- no pun intended. Stone avoids noting those consistent trail-markers that bear a particular partisan stamp -- preferring instead to examine the overall landscape of special interests surrounding the government agencies central to the film's plot. He looks beneath the political icing to reveal the actual cake itself. As the historians of American film-making add to the public's appreciation of the genre in the Future, Stone will be remembered every bit as well as Orson Welles for "Citizen Kane". In fact, both directors bore deep scars on their careers that were consequential to the release of their respective masterpieces.

Rating:
Summary: Makes You Question Reality
Review: This is the best film you could ever watch about the JFK assassination. The movie compells you to research the events leading up to the conspiracy that ended the life of the 35th President of the United States.

Some people have complained that elements within the "JFK" version of the conspiracy are historically inaccurate and fabricated. This was done on purpose by Oliver Stone so people will look at the real-world evidence for themselves and discover the truth. What is the truth? The truth is that a conspiracy occured on November 22nd, 1963 because there is no way in the entire existence of universe that one man could engineer all the events that led up to Kennedy's assassination.

Those who continue to believe that Oswald did it alone will always be in denial and are forever brainwashed by the Warren Commission. Anybody who watches the Zapruder film and doesn't see the glaring evidence of a gunman on the grassy knoll when Kennedys head falls back and to the left during the head-shot is either ignorant, stupid or both. People who believe that Arlen Specters "magic bullet" can pause, stop, spin and do U-turns in mid-air to make the seven wounds in Kennedy and Connally, will believe the moon is made out of green cheese and walk off a cliff when told to do so.

Two versions of history have been a war with each other since that fateful day in 1963; written history and memorized history.

Written history is designed for those who want to control your thoughts with mind control. Memorized history will always keep your mind free from those who want to control your thoughts.

Rating:
Summary: Movie-making At Its Best! All Of It True -- Unlikely!
Review: Oliver Stone's landmark JFK from 1991 made me think twice about what happened in Dallas nearly four decades past, on November 22, 1963. But how could so many different agencies possibly ALL be involved in such a massive plot of assassination and never have anybody from any of these agencies leak any information?! I guess Mr. Stone just wanted to touch every possible base, and throw in the kitchen sink, to boot! But, as far as the filmmaking here, I loved it! Great authentic 1963 shots of Dealey Plaza have been re-created for the movie, intercut with actual news and amateur footage throughout the film. It really is, at times, hard to discern between the re-creations and actual archival footage! The editing of this picture is on a level way above anything else you're likely to see anywhere! Buy this one, but watch the contents with a grain of salt at your side.

Rating:
Summary: Simply One Hell Of A Movie
Review: By in large most of the criticism of JFK is based on Oliver Stones' use of poetic lisence to rewrite the events of October 22, 1963. Personally, I find for better or worse the most plausible explainations surrounding the JFK assassination to be found in Gerald Posner's brilliant book, "Case Closed". Whether you want to believe it or not, 90% or more of the findings in the Warren Commission's report are irrefutable. Yes, there are many unanswered questions, and JFK the movie sheds little or almost no light on these. But, that does not take away from the stunning artistic value of this great motion picture.

Stone treats the entire story, start to finish almost as a Hitchcock thriller. Sure we know where the story is heading and of course there is no surprise ending. So how does he keep us intrigued for two solid hours? How do we remain transfixed on the characters; Osewald, Ruby, Clay Shaw, Jim Garrison and others? Simplely put this project was flawlessly cast, expertly edited, well written and masterfully directed.

Oliver Stone has made some great movies, The Doors, Wall Street, Platoon and Natural Born Killers to name a few. But, JFK will remain his masterpiece. Forget the historical incorrectness. Don't get hung up on the conflicting information from the Warren Commission and other sources. It's easy to dismiss this flim as inaccurate or half-truth. It is however, much harder to dispute the artisic value found here. This is simply one hell of a movie.

Rating:
Summary: Undeniably a great film...
Review: Most of the controversy over this movie has to do with whether it is historically accurate. But Oliver Stone's JFK does not make a grand statement as to what the facts are; it merely pokes about a hundred holes in the Warren Commission's account of what happened. At the end of this riveting film, you are left with the sense that Jim Garrison may not have been barking up the right tree, but the lone nut theory (along with the single bullet and all the rest) seems equally implausible.

Regardless of the historical facts, this is not a documentary, it's a fascinating film inspired by real events, a scary imagining of what might have been. The acting is first-rate, the editing is the best Stone has ever done and the soundtrack is haunting.

Slamming this film over accuracy alone would be like slamming Shakespeare for taking liberties with the lives of certain British rulers and ignoring the work itself.

BTW, I felt that the director's cut did not do much to advance the film. I would have preferred these as deleted scenes, because they slow down the otherwise very taut direction...

Rating:
Summary: Interesting Speculation!!
Review: Oliver Stone obviously had his own conspiracy theory about what happened on that cold November day in 1963. So he made it into a movie with the help of real life New Orleans District Atttorney, Jim Garrison. The result, an entertaining, but thought provocative film. We'll never know the answers about what happened, but Stone gives us some food for thought.

Rating:
Summary: Fine entertainment, but it's also historical distortion
Review: I liked Oliver Stone's "JFK", just as I like "Platoon" and "Born on the Fourth of July". However, I find some of the historical inaccuracies of this film to be disturbing. This movie implies that it knows all the facts about what really happened on 22nd November 1963, and the scenarios and characters of the story are designed to fit the theories of Oliver Stone and Jim Garrisson. The movie makes a world class villain out of Clay Shaw and many other people, and while it may indeed be true that Clay Shaw actually did what Garrisson SAYS he did, it's nonetheless true that there is no absolute proof regarding the matter, and it's also true that this movie will convince the viewer that not only Shaw, but a lot of other guys were behind a gigantic conspiracy and cover up. Nobody is going to seriously deny that there's a cover-up in the Kennedy murder (especially nowadays), but to do these posthumous character assassinations -- especially without clear cut proof -- is going to convince a lot of viewers out there that Garrisson's take on the JFK slaying is the DEFINITIVE take. It's also a disservice to Shaw's relatives -- who knows? Maybe Shaw is innocent after all, and here we are watching a movie that makes him into some permiscuous, cold-blooded liar and killer. Lots of people will think the movie JFK is like watching history -- it isn't. It's a dramatization of the highest order based on theories that may or may not ever be proven, and if you ask Oliver Stone why he didn't put a disclaimer either at the beginning or end of his movie (such as "the following [or preceding] is a dramatization based on theory"), he'll probably give you some cockneyed tale about how it never occurred to him to do so. The truth is probably that he knew that placing a disclaimer ANYWHERE on his movie (which would have been the responsible thing to do) would weaken its pretentious claim as being the whole truth about the assassination. Overall, it's a good film, but that's all it is: a movie. PS: FBI reports and eventual admissions from Jim Garrisson himself PROVE that Garrisson had links to the mafia, and it's also true that as the early to mid 1970s wore on that Garrisson's theories and accusations grew more and more senseless and slanderous. By the 1980s an early 90s, he was more or less a big, sad joke. He had the right idea, maybe, but never the skill or sublety to find things out without alienating the world.

Rating:
Summary: If you believe the Warren Commission...get a seeing-eye dog.
Review: First off, I will state that this is a fabulous piece of film-making. The direction is strong, the period recreation is amazing, the editing is mind-blowing, and the cast is phenomenal...particularly Gary Oldman as Lee Harvey Oswald. His performance is right on key and he looks incredibly similar to Oswald...just as he looked like Sid Vicious in "Sid and Nancy" and Ludwig Van Beethoven in "Immortal Beloved." Oldman is a chameleon who can seemingly look like anyone. He becomes the characters that he plays, and his turn as Oswald is no exception. Now...on to the substance of the film. This film is not 100% accurate, nor does it purport to be anything other than an educated guess as to what MAY have happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963. It is, however, leaps and bounds ahead of the Warren Commission Report, which isn't even believable in the slightest. I may not be convinced that this film's vision of the truth (based on books by Jim Garrison and Jim Marrs) is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but I've done my own research and I find it to be far closer to a believable theory than that proposed by the Warren Commission, whose report was...let's face facts, America...pure fiction. Anyone who believes that lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK needs to take his or her blinders off and start living in the real world. Still, one cannot say that Oswald (one of the most fascinating characters in American history) was not capable of amazing feats...like simultaneously being active in the Soviet Union and the United States...though that's easily explained when one takes the time to find a copy of the memo sent from J. Edgar Hoover himself to the Department of State on June 3, 1960, which reads in part "Since there is the possibility that an imposter is using Oswald's birth certificate, any current information the Department of State may have concerning the subject will be appreciated." There you have it...as far back as 1960, there were at least two Lee Harvey Oswalds running around. Not to mention that the LHO who was treated for tonsillitis twice during his stint with the Marines was obviously not the LHO who had his tonsils removed at the age of six. Nor was the LHO who had a 3-inch mastoidectomy scar behind his ear and a gunshot scar on his elbow the same LHO who was autopsied after being gunned down by Jack Ruby. There were AT LEAST two Oswalds active at the time of JFK's assassination...and many eyewitnesses have stated that they saw the police escorting Lee Harvey Oswald out of the rear exit of the Texas Theatre at the very same time that the Lee Harvey Oswald who was charged with JFK's murder was being led out the front. It is, therefore, possible that while Oswald's double (who is said to have resembled the real Oswald a great deal) may have been involved in the assassination and killed officer J.D. Tippitt, the real Oswald was taken into custody, while his double was led out the back of the very same theatre and set free. At any rate, there is a wealth of information out there, waiting to be discovered. My advice is to watch this brilliant film, but not to take it at face value. While you're at it, read up on the assassination. Start with "Crossfire" by Jim Marrs, and once you've made it through that lengthy volume, move onto other independent research. Much can even be found on the internet, including Armstrong's detailed outlines of the existence and movements of the two Oswalds...up to and including the day of the assassination. Gather all of the information and decide for yourself. But don't swallow the answers that are being force-fed to you...because almost invariably, they're lies.