The story of the famous and influential 1960s rock band The Doors and its lead singer and composer, Jim Morrison, from his days as a UCLA film student in Los Angeles, to his untimely death in Paris, France at age 27 in 1971.
A young and impatient stockbroker is willing to do anything to get to the top, including trading on illegal inside information taken through a ruthless and greedy corporate raider who takes the youth under his wing.
On November 22, 1963, president John F. Kennedy is assassinated in Dallas. Lee Harvey Oswald is arrested for the crime and subsequently shot by Jack Ruby, supposedly avenging the president's death. An investigation concludes that Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby acted alone in their respective crimes, but Louisiana district attorney Jim Garrison is skeptical. Assembling a trusted group of people, Garrison conducts his own investigation, bringing about backlash from powerful government and political figures. Written by
Jeff Bridges and Nick Nolte were both considered for the role of Jim Garrison. Bridges was turned down because he was not a major box-office draw, while Nolte was considered to be too old. He later worked with Stone in U Turn (1997). See more »
During the RFK shooting broadcast, Garrison is in the kitchen making a sandwich. On the counter is a jar of Hellmann's mayonnaise with a blue plastic lid. Hellmann's mayo had a metal "twist-off" lid in the '60s, not a plastic "screw-off" one. See more »
"To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards of men." - Ella Wheeler Wilcox
...We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. And to do this three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishement. We annually spend on military security alone...
January, 1961. President Dwight D. Eisenhowers's Farewell Address to the Nation.
...This conjunction of an immense military establishment and arms industry ...
[...] See more »
"JFK" was and remains so controversial that any positive reviews (not to
they were characteristic) it received were dwarfed by the trashing to
it was subjected in the official press, which started well before it was
released. This was disturbing, for what is the big need -- it is just a
movie. But to so many "JFK" was not, it was somehow threatening.
Ultimately, it does not matter whether JFK's conclusion is correct, and I
even willing to give a little more license than I normally would to
more-substantive, as well as less-important, inaccuracies, although I have
my limits here too. But this movie's significance is just that it was
made. For although other films had chronicled the events surrounding the
assassination, none had in any substantial way sought to discredit the
Warren Commission, as was so absolutely merited.
Regardless of your opinion on what really happened, it is my view that
everyone should be critical of the media, which were so obsequious to the
Warren Commission. The New York Times from the start referred to Oswald
the "assassin," not the "suspect." Life Magazine altered photos
suggesting a shot had been fired from the grassy knoll. Many years
when being interviewed by Dan Rather about his film, Oliver Stone said to
his face, referring to the event: "Where were you, Dan?"
Indeed, in a documentary he made, Rather said, "in the absence of any
CREDIBLE evidence, we can only..." This fallacy is a betrayal of the
definition of evidence, with Rather's poor characterization of the word
"credible." There is enormous, indeed endless, evidence contradicting the
Warren Commission's view, and much of it is certainly credible, including
all the evidence of the Commission's own efforts to conduct a dishonest
incomplete investigation and intimidate witnesses into changing their
testimony to support the version it wanted. In fact, I consider it Gerald
Ford's greatest character flaw that he served on it and backed its conduct
and conclusion, a far more disturbing matter than his pardon of Nixon.
Whether the evidence to which Rather referred is CONCLUSIVE is another
story; that is up to us, the jury. The sort of smugness Rather shows has
been characteristic of much of the media, and I do not know all the
they behaved as they did. Thus, we needed a more courageous, enterprising
person like Oliver Stone to step in and fill the gap -- the overwhelming
majority of people believe the Commission got it wrong.
Stone's enlistment of mere hypotheticals, theorized by Garrison (setting
aside the final scene--there were moments before) or whoever, has been
subjected to unfair, ill-conceived criticism. Most people who knew
at all about the assassination believed there were problems with the
Commission's version before they saw this film, and came out of it with an
elaboration and hypothesis, not a mindbender. Even if we concede that
younger viewers knew little about the assassination, the notion of the
critics of "JFK" that the film would automatically program their minds is
insult to their intelligence, of the ability of people in general to think
and come to their own conclusions. Indeed, no one to whom I have EVER
spoken has betrayed a view of events that reflects even most, if not all,
Stone's conclusions. If any programming is called for, it is to program
people against the Commission's version, not, as its defenders would wish,
against Stone. For no one can be programmed to accept Stone's alternate
OK, some inaccuracies of Stone can be criticized, such as his portrayal of
Garrison (All-American Kevin Costner, natch) as a wholesome hero, and the
time-between-shots issue (it is now generally conceded that there was
time, based on all the evidence, for Oswald to have done it, for those who
believe he did). Perhaps the speech by David Ferrie never occurred, but
still reflects the widely held view that the CIA and Mafia worked together
in this matter. Certainly, many people in the government despised
and there were substantially more elements of this hostility than
in the film. Anyway, we can go on and on. The Warren Commission tried to
cover up overwhelming evidence that Ruby knew Oswald, that a shot was
from the grassy knoll, that a dark-skinned man fired shots from the Dallas
School Book Depository, and that Officer Tippit was killed by someone
than Oswald (actually, two people). Well, at least some members resisted
the single bullet theory (I guess that passes Rather's definition of
"credible"), although they ultimately signed the report.
I do not agree with Oliver Stone's specific ultimate conclusion about the
central moving force of the assassination. But he has the right to
the U.S. government was involved, and many, including myself, think it was
involved somehow, but that what is debatable is merely to what extent and
how far up. Hats off to Stone for his courage and thoughtfulness in
his necessary statement.
9 out of 10
159 of 247 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?