JFK

JFK_720p(480P)

source: JFK

JFK

The problem with this film is that while Oliver Stone continually ducks behind the curtain defending himself that he was only making a work of fiction, he uses enough historical imagery and data that the end product is as I have described it in the "one line description:" a bad history term paper. I'll not recount the historical inaccuracies that permeate the film concerning the individuals involved save to note that attempting to make a hero of Jim Garrison would be laughable if the reputations otherwise damaged in the film did not belong to real people. I would encourage anyone who believes that the character Kevin Costner portrayed bore any philosophical or intellectual similarity to Jim Garrison should read a biography of Garrison some time. he knew he had no case, he knew his "star witness" was perjuring himself. but the call to glory was too great for Garrison to let those "little inconveniences" get in his way. The real life Jim Garrison ultimately lost his case against Clay Shaw and Stone loses his case as well by attempting to glue together a variety of conspiracy theories, many of which had been debunked long before the release of the film in 1991. The problem, however, is that those theories are presented in "JFK" as historical verities, and large numbers of viewers haven't the historical grounding in the facts of the assassination and the scores of investigations conducted since to know where Stone is taking "artistic license" and the actual facts of the case. The result is that actual people end up being smeared by innuendo and "factual evidence" long since discredited.

JFK is a movie that always frustrates me. I am not frustrated because it is bad or the historical inaccuracies people point out. Rather because it's so good it always angers me how underrated this masterpiece is. This of course did receive generally good reviews with a 83% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 72 Metascore, I think this deserves more than just "generally favorable reviews". Many trash this movie which I, with all due respect, don't get why. If you haven't seen this movie I demand you to stop reading this review, get up the couch and go buy this movie right now. As you can guess from the very "creative" title, this movie is about the investigation of the JFK assassination centering district attorney Jim Garrison played by Kevin Costner. This movie is even speaking visually a masterpiece. The editing is excellent using both black & white and color masterfully to create this sense of mystery. The performances are all excellent with the obvious ones being Kevin Costner and Tommy Lee Jones who give unforgettable performances, and the score of course is phenomenal. But what makes this movie so wonderful is how this it is perfectly written. If there is a way to describe this movie, it is that the conspiracy gets uglier as it gets going. What I mean by that is first the film starts with a pretty simple well known hypothesis that Oswald actually did not kill Kennedy. But as the three hour runtime proceeds, the conspiracy gets as big as the involvement of LBJ and the White House. As the facts get presented you can see how the truth is uglier than what we know from the Warren commission, and how there is a bigger power preventing us from knowing the truth. At the climax of the movie, Oliver Stone challenges us, "Is the justice system we live in really practice justice?" This is a movie that we all want to ignore to avoid the most shameful truth of our justice system, but as Americans we must face this and question the system we currently have. Overall this is a terrific movie that is very criminally overlooked. I honestly can't understand why this is not on the IMDb top 250 in a world where Hachi: A Dog's tale and a bunch of Bollywood musicals can make it in. This is a perfect example that IMDb overlook real masterpieces like this one and are just obsessed with Indian movies (Like seriously! Why is IMDb obsessed with Indian movies!). Though I don't give a lot of these, I give this one a 10/10 and a A+. It is very unfortunate the maximum rating is 10/10 in IMDb, since if there is no limitations I would rate this a 20/10.

What a prime example of the paranoia of film director Oliver Stone. Here, Mr. Stone - perhaps king of the left wing conspiracy theorists along with Michael Moore - gives us his take on the Kennedy Assassination. He makes it look convincing, too. Of course, when you are only presented one side of an argument, yours can sound pretty good, too. That's the problem with this film and the viewers who watched it, not stopping to think how biased it was in the first place. One thing for sure, to be fair: it's an entertaining film. Kevin Costner, Kevin Bacon, Tommy Lee Jones, Laura Metaclf, Sissy Spacek, Gary Oldman and others make up a pretty impressive cast. The cinematography is slick, too, all making the long film (189 minutes) pass fairly quickly. Thus, it's good entertainment but don't be sucked into thinking is the truth.....as in any film. Remember "Fargo" where it says in the beginning of the film that it's a true story? It turns out the whole thing was fabricated. Maybe someone should do a conspiracy movie about Oliver Stone's films!

Simply put, this is one of the worst films ever made. Maybe not in the technical sense because Oliver Stone does know how make a film; however, he's just so wrapped up in his government conspiracy psychosis, that you would be better off spending your time with a film that doesn't pretend not to be a fantasy fairy tale. I love a good conspiracy flick when it has a shred of imagination and intelligence. But Stone has so many people involved the JFK assassination that the only person I'm sure wasn't involved in this massive conspiracy/coverup was me. How could so many people be involved in JFK's murder, but absolutely no one ever came forward to cash in on the hysteria in some way or another? Like I said, preposterous. I watched this movie hoping to see something that I hadn't thought of before. Instead I got a story in which Stone apparently went to a 3rd grade class and told them to make up as many wild hypotheses as they could about the 36th president's death. The only saving grace was Walter Matthau and John Candy who are always terrific when presented with dramatic roles. I think that this movie has ruined Stone's and Kevin Costner's careers. Neither one has made a successful movie since.

Whether you agree with Jim Garrison's conspiracy theory or not, Stone's film is an effective mystery. The pieces of the puzzle are put together with great skill so that the viewer is kept involved despite the length of the film. The John Williams score helps to build the atmosphere of intrigue and confusion. Costner is rather bland, as usual, but that works well here since he is surrounded by such an interesting group of colorful characters. This is definitely a good mystery -- and a frightening one if even part of the conspiracy theory has validity.

[WARNING: May Contain Spoilers] Oliver Stone gives Leni Riefenstahl a run for her money for making the most insidious film of all time. Both filmmakers are brilliantly talented. Its what they do with their talent that is disgraceful. "JFK" is a propaganda piece. This genre, however expertly crafted, always suffers from its roots in advocacy. This is why some wartime flicks seem agonizingly corny. What separates "JFK" from most of its fellow propaganda films is the views and interests which it wishes to advance. Namely, "JFK" advances the idea that Lyndon Johnson aided by the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Dallas Police Department, the Pentagon, Bethesda Naval Hospital, Parkland Hospital, the City of Dallas, the John Birch Society, communists, fascists, cuban left wingers, cuban right wingers, mobsters of various political and personal bents, nightclub owners, topless dancers, reporters both national and local, and various others sought to snuff out President Kennedy and cover it up for infinity. The vehicle for advancing this claptrap comes in the form of the intrepid and dogmatic District Attorney for New Orleans, Mr. Jim Garrison played by Kevin Costner. Costner's portrayal of Mr. Garrison may be right on the money. He spends most of the film completely absorbed with the idea of a conspiracy. In addition, he makes very lengthy pronouncements throughout the film consisting mostly of bombast and grandiose theories from the fringe. Mr. Garrison's staff are played up as "yes men" dupes (until the end, when we see some rebellion). I thought it quite amusing that one of the deputy D.A.'s is played by the comedian, Wayne Knight, better known as Newman on Seinfeld. Now that is apropos. Normally, this film should be considered simply trash. However, "JFK" has become some sort of an educational tool. It shows up in high schools around the country every year to "teach" our kids. Of course it also shows up in our living rooms so the intellectually lazy can take a three hour course on President Kennedy's assassination. Despite the outrage of traditional historians (whom I suppose are part of the plot themselves), the majority of viewers still buy the preposterous premise, hook, line, and sinker. This moves "JFK" beyond the category of trash, and places it within the company of "Triumph des Willens" for its evil.

A film for the gullible and ignorant who are stupid enough to buy into Oliver Stone's pack of lies. Stone contrived this load of misinformation and manure mostly just to make himself rich. It serves no legitimate purpose. The film is Oliver's twisting of facts and pure fabrication. Garrison never made the closing argument speech that Kevin Costner delivered in the JFK film. NEVER MADE SUCH A SPEECH yet it's the climax of the film. That is just one of the many glaring things in this film that are kluged. The HISTORY CHANNEL did a thorough job of debunking it. In JFK, Oliver Stone takes history and fictionalizes it to make it a more dramatic, commercial piece that he passes off as re-enacting history. In fact, much of Stone's "JFK" movie is a lie, it never happened as Stone depicted it. Oliver Stone has admitted using "artistic license" in creating the film but his depiction goes way beyond that. It's all so convincingly portrayed that many people have taken it as fact. It's not unlike the Jon Stewart Daily Show treatment of the news or Michael Moore's distortions in his "documentaries". If Stone's upcoming movie "W" is anything like his previous work - it will be nothing more than a new collection of Stone's lies and distortions - simply not to be believed. Nevertheless, a lazy and ignorant populace will soak it up as fact and make Oliver Stone a lot more money.