JFK (1991) Poster


User Reviews

Add a Review
456 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
An Engaging and Eye Opening Political Thriller
Inception Report11 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The assassination of American President John Kennedy is one of the most talked about events in American history so making a film about such a talked over event was going to be no easy task but Oliver Stone pulled it of perfectly and may just be the best film he's ever given us next to Platoon. This film has an extremely long runtime and there's nothing wrong with that as long as they use it to the films advantage and they do, the first 30 minutes of this film takes the time to explore the effects of the assassination, the reasons why it effected To so many people and sets up the main character and his motivations played perfectly by Kevin Costner. I truly think that this is the greatest performance Kevin Costner has ever given because he perfectly strikes a balance between his obsession with solving the assassination and his commitments to his family, the character is just so well written, you understood why he was so obsessed and was an easy person to get behind. Tommy Lee Jones gives a performance like we've never seen from him before, he was fantastic in this film, he was such a despicable character and was the perfect foil for the plot of this film. A very young Gary Oldman was also great in this film as Lee Harvey Oswald, he leaves a really big impression for the rest of the film to follow and when we start to learn more about Oswalds character, Oldmans performance remains consistent. This film could have been extremely boring because of the amount of information that it has to give out but it never is. The film takes entire sequences to add emotional weight to the assassination and the masterful editing in this film allowed us to take in the information better. I really liked the fact that Stone didn't paint the assassination as just an act of pure evil, we begin to understand why JFK was killed and while you never support them, you understand why the assassins chose to kill him and made the film much more interesting. Another thing I loved about this movie was the sub plot of Garrisons family, it added to Costners character as we begin to see that his obsession with this case is becoming unhealthy, yet through conversations with his children we begin to further understand his motives and was really heartwarming at times.

JFK is a masterpiece, it's engaging, never boring and extremely intriguing. While I'm not entirely sure if this film is completely accurate, it's probably somewhat close to the truth. It has fantastic performances, particularly that of Kevin Costner and may just be Stones best film.

9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Past the controversy
Strangef83 July 2004
In the time since I first saw the film "JFK", I have found myself inexplicably drawn to the events in Dallas, TX on November 22, 1963. I have researched online and in libraries to learn the truth of these events, and I would say that my outlook on those matters has changed substantially. But underneath that, and the controversy that developed from it, there is one universal and almost indisputable truth regarding the film: JFK is simply an excellent movie. And no difference of opinion can refute this.

I have seen my fair share of films over the years, I'm not a cinema maniac by any means. But I think I can judge a quality product when I see one and that's simply what this picture presents. It is, as Tom Wicker of the New York Times said at it's release, propaganda; but the same can be said for every film by Michael Moore... of whom I'm NOT a fan... but they are still strong pictures.

JFK runs the difficult task of presenting fact, fiction, conjecture and opinion, twisting them all to present the increasingly difficult to dispute conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone (and according to director Oliver Stone, did not act) in the assassination of President Kennedy.

The films accomplishments though, past this controversial thesis, are many: 1.) Kevin Costner turns in one of the greatest performances of his career. While his accent is stronger than Garrison and the physical resemblance not astonishing, Costner three dimensionalizes a character and lives in it throughout the film.

2.) An impressive and versatile cast is used superbly. The film is loaded with quality stars such as Kevin Bacon, Tommy Lee Jones (in an Oscar nominated role), Gary Oldman, and Joe Pesci (who share an intense and crucial scene); as well as character actors and actresses such as Michael Rooker, Sissy Spacek, and Jay Saunders. Stone even navigates a dramatic turn from the late comedy great John Candy and utilizes Hollywood legends Ed Asner, Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau and Donald Sutherland superbly.

3.) With the possible exception of the lone gunman theory, every possibility of truth is explored, at least in dialogue. Because the case has never been fully elaborated on no one can say for certain what the truth is; Stone presents all views while advancing his theory.

4.) The film is a masterwork of editing. It won the Oscar for film editing in 1991, and deserved it. I once read in Entertainment Weekly that a normal film has roughly 200 cuts in it; there are more than sixty in the opening minutes alone here. Even more impressive when you consider the variety of film used.

JFK is not absolute fact, it does not truly pretend to be. By Stone's own admission, Laurie Metcalf, Michael Rooker, and Kevin Bacon play composites or dramatized characters, not the real thing. But standing alone as a movie, JFK is untouchably excellent. And if it does force you to question, as Costner's Garrison asks in the closing moments "of what is our government made?", then it's all for the better.
171 out of 235 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
One of the best and most important films ever made!
Casa20009 March 1999
Oliver Stone's epic film which follows the real-life events of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison is a monumental movie event. It should have been named the Best Picture of 1991 instead of The Silence of the Lambs.

Everything about this film is perfect and it shows that when an intriguing story comes together with all other elements of filmmaking that are executed brilliantly, the film works on so many levels.

First off, Stone's direction is as good as it gets. He has an incredible passion for the subject, knowledge of the art and relationship with the camera. All of his footage goes together seamlessly and makes the 3 h 08 min running time blow by. He gets a strong performance out of the entire ensemble cast especially Costner, Jones, Oldman, and Pesci.

Scalia and Hutsching's editing is a work of art and tells the complicated story with incredible precision. Richardson's cinematography lights up the screen in both colour and black and white. Both of these technical aspects of filmmaking are molded into sheer artistry by these three men who have all deserved their Oscars for this film.

John Williams' score is one of his best (right up there with his Indiana Jones and Star Wars). The script is intelligent, thought-provoking, mesmorizing and heart-wrenching. Costner's closing speech to the Jury is finer that Nicholson's in A Few Good Men, McConaughey's in A Time to Kill and Jackson's in Pulp Fiction. It is Stone and Sklar's best work.

The subject matter is incredibly controverial and subjective but Stone's delivers it with such emotion and raw power that his alternate myth to the Warren Report seems factual. The film is an investigation into the human spirit and how the vigour and dedication of one man and his team of associates can rise above the highest powers of the world and encode a message into the minds and hearts of millions. John F. Kennedy has countless achievements and qualities as a president which makes his life and term one of the most incredible and worthy of deep study.

Oliver Stone's JFK should go down in film history as one of the most important American films ever produced. Watch it with an open mind free of prejudice and predisposition and you will find yourself wanting to go to the library and learn more about this global tragedy.
246 out of 349 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Modern Cultural Obsession
Michael O'Connor29 September 2007
The assassination of JFK has been told in every possible way through every available medium. Oliver Stone managed the unimaginable transforming and almost folk tragedy, through a mix of drama and cinema veritè, into a riveting mystery thriller with the paranoiac style of a man who's in touch with paranoia in a quasi permanent basis. Unnerving, frustrating and spectacularly satisfying. Kevin Costner manages to be convincing as the center piece of the conspiracy theory. We believe the whole damn thing because we see it through his logic. Sissy Spacek, as his wife, represents most us and she does it brilliantly. Tommy Lee Jones and Kevin Bacon are a pleasure to watch. Donald Sutherland, Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau and even John Candy, Sally Kirkland and Vincent D'Onofrio deliver little parts of the puzzle without ever becoming distracting. Gary Oldman is a chilling dead ringer for Lee Harvey Oswald. For film lovers, for history nuts, for pop culture fanatics and for conspiracy theorists, this is a must.
86 out of 118 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
No matter how ugly a truth is, it is never uglier than its absence ...
ElMaruecan8218 September 2012
On the field of storytelling, "JFK" reminds of Costa Gavras' "Z", a political thriller meticulously deconstructing a politician's murder in a fictional Fascist country. Yet it owes more to Akira Kurosawa's "Rashomon" which presented one reality from as many angles as levels of subjectivity. It's interesting that these films, all one-word titled, were made in the same intervals of time and like "Rashomon" and "Z", "JFK" is less a name than a code that encapsulates behind the mystery and the patriotic mask, a more universal truth about humanity.

Still, patriotism is seriously involved and it's very significant that Oliver Stone, one of America's most prolific political film-makers, much more a Vietnam vet, handled the subject of Kennedy's assassination. As a man who practiced America's ideals on a muddy battlefield, Stone is entitled to question these values he fought for and the integrity of the leaders that sent him out there: indeed, why would America send soldiers to fight foreigners in Vietnam? Why so far when Cuba is so close?

Money is the key. There are no warmongers but businessmen who generate money out of all the steel, the guns, the helicopters, the machines that are blown to pieces in Asia. In fact, Stone didn't make a Vietnam and a President trilogy but a colossal oeuvre about Politics and War. And to a certain extent, Kennedy can be regarded as one of the Vietnam War's victims, as a collateral damage: he was against the conflict and got killed before putting an end to it. It doesn't point an accusing finger on the Army, but it highlights at least one serious motive for Kennedy's assassination.

And that's the essence of the investigation lead by District Attorney Garrison, Kevin Costner at the peak of his bank-ability. Garrison isn't satisfied with the conclusions of the Warren Commission that validated the "isolated killer" theory, incarnated by Lee Harvey Oswald (a remarkable Gary Oldman) who conveniently died before his trial. What was his motive anyway? The Commission closed the case, leaving a bunch of altered testimonies, witnesses silenced before exposing their truth and so many unanswered questions. Garrison smells something fishy and who wouldn't? And the compass to guide his investigation is the elementary question: who benefits from the crime?

And this is where Kennedy's assassination takes a sort of legendary aura, playing as a modern version of Julius Caesar. Kennedy could have made a lot of enemies everywhere: CIA, Russia, Cubans, although I wouldn't regard it as an omission, the film didn't even mention the possibility of an involvement from the Federal Reserve Bank since Kennedy always defended the sovereignty of the dollar. But as the film progresses, it gets clearer that Kennedy was a man to eliminate, and one of "JFK"'s highlights (which is saying a lot) is carried by the revelations delivered by Donald Sutherland as Mr. X, in Washington.

There are two levels in "JFK", the mystery surrounding the murder and the investigation, what happened and what is known. And both interact in a masterstroke of editing, probably one of the most complicated, intricate and brilliant ever committed to screen, certainly a school-case for wannabe editors. Literally, "JFK" is served like a salad of documents, flashbacks, excerpts from the Zapruder film, archive footage, memories, truths and lies, shot in every possible way (sepia, 16mm, amateur, black and white) and as Roger Ebert pointed out, the film would have been harder to follow with an unchanging shooting. The salad is rich but digestible.

And like a 1000-piece puzzle, "JFK" is an assemblage of different portions of reality that tend to get Garrison, if not closer to the 'final image', further from the Warren's conclusions. On that level, the film provides an extraordinary cast of supporting characters, from Jack Lemmon to Joe Pesci, from Kevin Bacon to John Candy, each one leading to one certainty: there was a conspiracy. The analysis of the Zapruder film revealed the timing between the first and last shot, making implausible the 'one-killer' hypothesis, even if he's a sharpshooter. And this very implausibility implies the presence of a second person, which is enough to validate the idea of a conspiracy.

And last but not least, there's the excitability of some interrogated people who know that they put their lives at stakes if they talk. The film is driven by a sense of paranoia that conveys its greatest thrills. What can be more emotionally engaging than a quest for truth anyway, especially when it undermines the deepest beliefs of any good citizen? One of Garrison's employees, played by Michael Rooker, can't accept the possibility of Johnson's involvement, even Garrison's wife (Sissy Spacek) represent this side of America that wants to turn the page. Garrison has detractors and it starts in his own private circle, before he becomes a target for the media.

Garrison embodies the struggle of a man who wants to reconcile with America's ideals, he doesn't fight the government because he's against it, but because the government acts against the people. He feels like owing this to Kennedy, to his vision of America, to his sons, and as his investigation goes on, he witnesses the deaths of Martin Luther King, of Bobby Kennedy, and realizes that the system that killed Kennedy still prevails. Garrison's struggle is magnificently conveyed by the sort of inspirational score that only John Williams could have performed.

"JFK" works on every cinematic level, it's one of the best political films and best conspiracy movies ever made because it doesn't try to tell its own truth but to belie a fallacious version. It starts with an axiom: there was a conspiracy, and as long as it won't be solved, there's an emotional wound in America's heart that would never be healed.
43 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Oliver Stone's greatest film!!!
BobStage1 December 2007
I have stated many times that Oliver Stone is an incredible film maker whose films sizzle with excellent cinematography, good acting, and original storyline. He makes controversial films that are sometimes unappreciated by the public and the critics. I said and believed all this even before I watched "JFK".

"JFK" is a film that stars many A-list actors in major and minor roles, but they give deep imprints nonetheless. Tommy Lee Jones, the Oscar nominated actor of the film, gives a performance that I almost missed due to my not recognizing him. Jones plays Clay Shaw, a powerful figure in New Orleans and a secret homosexual who knew about the plot to kill the president. Gary Oldman is fantastic as the widely publicized murderer, Lee Harvey Oswald. Joe Pesci, fresh from his Oscar in "Goodfellas", as Dave Ferrie, a man who is struggling to cope with the heavy accusations and mysteries of the JFK murder. Donald Sutherland in an Oscar-worthy performance, as an informant that talks to Jim Garrison, played wonderfully by Kevin Costner. Other great appearances include Kevin Bacon, Sissy Spacek, Michael Rooker, and even Walter Matthau in a bit appearance.

Many of these fine performances were worthy of Oscars, but if there is one man that deserved an Oscar more than anyone else, it would have to be Oliver Stone, who did not win Best Director OR Best Picture. Who did he lose to? "Silence of the Lambs". While I do consider the film to be an excellent thriller featuring one of Anthony Hopkins' greatest performances, I must say that in terms of scope and daring, "JFK" was a far superior film. The cinematography was far more varied and ambitious, as well as the subject matter itself. I can understand why "JFK" was passed over, but the reasons are not fair to the extraordinary film given to us.

The appearance of "JFK" is astounding. You are taken to a time of much distrust, horror, confusion, corruption, and cover-up. The murders of JFK, Martin Luther King, and RFK all influenced the time periods and the peoples. Many people tried not to think about it, or else they were scared into silence. Some, like Jim Garrison, tried to present the truth of "JFK", and their efforts are being felt even now.

Before I saw this film, I had seen Oliver comment that "JFK" was a movie in which he got all the crazy theories and presented them. He was not implying that everything was true, and some of it isn't true. But after seeing this film, I am convinced there was definitely more to the story than was originally told, as I believed even before I saw "JFK". This gave me a knowledge of the period, and awareness of the people participating in the drama of the time.

The point of the film is not entirely based on the story of the JFK assassination. It is an outcry from Oliver Stone to remind us that truth is never simple, nor is it always presented by the government. People must struggle to find the truth sometimes, and if it is covered up, it could be lost forever. The film is an attempt to show us that the murder of President Kennedy was a time of much confusion and mix-up. So what was true and what was not? Many eye-witnesses gave conflicted views, while other circumstances were strange in their origins and happening. And while he gave us this, Oliver Stone also presented us with the best film that he has yet made, and his resume is incredible as it is.

I have seen the films "Platoon" and "Born on the Fourth of July": films that Oliver Stone won Best Director for. Why did he not win for "JFK"? Why did it only win 2 Oscars? For me, it is another example of how disappointing the Oscar results can be. I urge all to see this epic film of mystery and deceit, of truth and lies, the work of a master film director known as Oliver Stone.
89 out of 125 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Stunningly Well Planned and Articulated Film
dustbrother20411 January 2003
Oliver Stone is undoubtedly one of the most controversial directors of all time, his work has included horrifyingly real stories of Vietnam, stories of the corruption of politics and a much-despised account of Jim Morrison's life. No matter the subject matter, Stone always gives it his all and sometimes the world's response is positive and sometimes it's negative. With JFK we are faced with one of his films that was probably one of his most successful (next to Platoon of 1986). This is a rare instance in which the public loved the concept of conspiracy in their own country, and took special interest in the debates that it caused amongst the government upon release. The best thing about this film is that it is and was treated as so much more than a film. My honest opinion is that this response was created not because of a more plausible theory but because of Stone's fantastic and unique job putting the story together.

The film opens on a surprisingly suspenseful scene of the murder of John F. Kennedy. The chopped style of the scene lets you know that something is not right, dramatic black and white shots spliced with the blurry grain shots of the home video taken by a witness (it won Academy Awards for Best Film Editing and Best Cinematography). This, accompanied by John Williams' excellent original score helped do an excellent job of creating a mood, just for this very first scene. Often times a director will stop after this, give it his all for style and then stop after the first scene, but Stone doesn't do this. He makes the film so much more than a boring investigation; he takes you in to each of the puzzle pieces (indeed, it feels like you're with Kevin Costner "digging" through hundreds of events.) For 90% of these clips that lace the film's concepts together, the camera is not kept steady, it is, indeed, like you are there witnessing it. The human eye doesn't only look at what is important, and a situation of trauma can make everything seem broken, confused. Oliver Stone doesn't try to make sure you understand what's going on. Some frown upon this, but it's realistic and that's what counts.

Kevin Costner plays Jim Garrison, the district attorney of New Orleans who investigates the murder of John Kennedy. Sometimes you are expected to disagree (at first) with some of Garrison's presumptuous statements, and when you do there is always at least one character around who will agree with you. Stone realizes most viewers aren't devoted enough to believe everything Garrison says no matter what it is throughout the film. Stone has said that he wants people to "rethink history" and that this film is not guaranteed fact, but an "alternate myth" to the myth that has been presented before. The story is not solid because very few ideas or people or events in life are. What I mean to say is that Garrison's comments are not necessarily ridiculous, it's just a matter of how hard he tries to support them. The focus constantly changes -- yes, Costner will smile a bit when he makes a ridiculous remark that everyone rolls their eyes at, yes, even at the end of the film some clips will be left unchecked, and yes, you will see that there is no way that the question "who killed JFK" is answered as simply, solidly, and, dare I say it, Hollywood-esquely as a one man killing. If you watch this movie looking for real life, without dramatization and without guaranteed entertainment and fun, you will be impressed. This is not a popcorn movie.

And finally a word should be said about the actors' enhancement of the realism of the film. Most notable are Joe Pesci as the frantic David Ferrie who pretends to be a victim but truly (we see) had much more to do with it than he pretends (although convincingly was not an assassin -- he blows the whole thing out of proportion "this is too f*cking big for you, you know that?") and Tommy Lee Jones as the wry ring leader Claw Shaw, who seems to be a pompous upscale member of society that has been doing the dark business of conspiracy behind closed doors. The fact that these characters can appear real to us and not just appear as familiar actors taking on a role (as you might feel in Ocean's Eleven) truly does the film justice in driving it forward.

This is in fact one of my top three favorite movies, but I tend to refrain from mentioning it as just this to my friends-- I'm sooner to mention Memento or Fight Club. The reason for this is that the movie is almost an acquired taste, and certainly not normal entertainment for a teenager. It's honestly written for a generation above me, but everything that makes it (up to and including the "kings are killed" and other political themes) are intriguing to me, and for me anything intriguing grows to be a favorite. Even if the subject is not something that ever really impacted me, I take themes to heart, and I always love a good "enigma wrapped in a riddle."

NOTES: -Maybe a point off for being inconsistent in goal. Though as admirable in a movie as any other characteristic, I found this to be the most restricting on ability to follow along. -Also notable is the fact that it's very release sparked opening of sealed governmental records on the subject.

131 out of 189 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Time flies despite its daunting runtime - An informative and important film
Rameshwar IN9 January 2017
Reviewed April 2012

The movie might have exaggerated, dramatized or manipulated certain real events, but what a stunning presentation featuring one of the best ensemble performances and intense screenplay that holds the audience attention for well over 3 hours. Though it reminds a bit of 'All the presidents men', it doesn't have its subtlety.

It all starts after the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the conspiracies surrounding the investigation. Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) a DA of New Orleans is convinced that there is a lot more to what the officials are willing to share and after finding a lot of loop holes in the Warren Commissions report, starts an unauthorized investigation with a small team from his office. He starts putting together facts, speculates certain conspiracy theories and the case starts consuming him. The fear, humiliation, object of losing his family doesn't stop him from going further.

The amount of information, fact or fiction fed to the audience in extraordinary and since it is a little speculative and involves one of the most popular conspiracy theories, there is a better chance the audience gets sucked into it. Screenplay doesn't allow a single dull moment and every actor gives a one up performance scene after scene. The look of the period and a clever mix of real and shot footage helps too. One problem here is that, it does not just present the important facts and let the viewer decide, it thinks for the viewer too. Thus dumbing down and ending up one dimensional.

Knowing the runtime beforehand might be a daunting task for you to attempt to watch this, trust me time flies is an idiom never more appropriate while watching this movie.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Stone lone braveman
Kakueke4 November 2001
"JFK" was and remains so controversial that any positive reviews (not to say they were characteristic) it received were dwarfed by the trashing to which 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 am 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 as the "assassin," not the "suspect." Life Magazine altered photos strongly suggesting a shot had been fired from the grassy knoll. Many years later, 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 legal 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 and 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 reasons 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 anything 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 some younger viewers knew little about the assassination, the notion of the critics of "JFK" that the film would automatically program their minds is an 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, of 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 view.

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 enough 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 it still reflects the widely held view that the CIA and Mafia worked together in this matter. Certainly, many people in the government despised Kennedy, and there were substantially more elements of this hostility than portrayed 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 fired 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 other 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 suggest 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 making his necessary statement.

9 out of 10
161 out of 249 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
JFK The Movie and the Message Board: My Thesis
Patriotic_American30 November 2009
The movie JFK is in effect a who-done-it without telling you who-done-it. Oliver Stone gives us the story of New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison in his quest to convict businessman Clay Shaw of conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy in Dallas. However, Garrison's case against Shaw was never strong. Truth be told, I myself am not a believer that Mr. Shaw had anything to do with President Kennedy's death on November 22, 1963. With that said, there are other factors in the motion picture that do offer more than a few redeemable gems. Lee Oswald's very dubious movements in Russia, New Orleans, and Mexico for one. The hostility of the CIA toward the Kennedy White House, and the Agency's involvement with the Mafia to assassinate Cuba's Castro. The highly implausible saga of the Single Bullet Theory, and the strange behavior of Dr. Humes for burning the original autopsy draft. Factor's such as this, to name a few, have put a great strain on the Warren Commission's conclusion that Oswald did it - and did it alone. Criticisms toward the report have been around for years prior to the movie JFK. Yet it was this movie that brought these critical factors to the national stage and a new generation. History NEED NOT say that JFK be the definitive word for the killing of John Kennedy, but the Warren Commission CANNOT make that claim either. The Government went into the investigation into President Kennedy's death with a preconceived notion that Oswald was to be blamed, and the presentation of evidence was to show that end - and that end alone. The Commission was bullied by the Johnson White House to finish the investigation before the 64 election. The "autopsy" that the Commission used to prove it's case was a shambles. The CIA's deception to the Commission on assassination plots with the Mafia on Fidel Castro only adds to the Warren Report's investigative impotence. True, Oliver Stone's movie is a mixture of fact and fiction, that is clear. However, it does illustrate key facts to the case which the Warren Commission failed or refused to cover. That by itself makes the movie worthy of the nine stars I give it. But proceed with caution, dear reader: Be aware that this film, like so many peoples's take on the death of John Kennedy, is a blend of history and opinion. Watch the movie, but also watch your step.....As part of my thesis I also visited the JFK message board where I encountered a very angry group of die-hard lone gunman enthusiasts who appear to be suffering from severe manic depression from years and years of frustration trying to convince a disbelieving world that Oswald did it - and did it alone. Any one who posts anything conspiratorial on the board is immediately subjected to all kinds of verbal abuse and insults. This tactic doesn't seem to be helping them in their efforts to convince the public that Oswald did it, in fact it seems to have the opposite effect, it turns people off of it. I saw some people posting conspiracy theories there just to deliberately try to annoy them. And to add insult to their injury a man who goes by the name of Bill humiliates and degrades them on an almost daily basis using a variety of clone accounts. When I asked one of the lone gunman believers why he did this he simply said "because I have nothing better to do", I thought this was sad, very sad. The lone gunman believers also claim to be atheists and have given up their religions because the scientists who support the lone gunman theory also support the theory of evolution. They also appear to be anti-semitic, one lone gunman believer told me that "the Jews bombed the Titanic." I do not recommend this message board to anyone unless you are just looking for laughs.
45 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A good mystery
mermatt12 August 1998
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.
54 out of 97 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
To all those idiots who think this movie is a propaganda.
shandar_20034 August 2011
Its no more a hidden truth that JFK was murdered as his ideologies went against the interest of the Military Industrial Complex.The government,CIA,FBI and Corporate Mafia were all involved in this conspiracy.May be this movie has went above the head of some idiots who call it a speculation and a propaganda or a conspiracy theory.

The subsequent expenditure of trillions of American Taxpayers money to wage war by various presidents especially President Bush(both senior and junior) establishes the fact that America is a democracy not of American people but of American Capitalist Mafia.Imagine how much money the American government spends on countering Terrorism and then think who benefits from these investment.
61 out of 111 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The most entertaining movie you will EVER see. I guarantee it.
nelsonkane21 June 2017
Oliver Stone may "play" with the facts, but I don't care. I saw it NINE times in the theatres when it came out, sometimes twice a day! Has any movie ever had a cast of so many famous actors and actresses? Nope. When I go to the movies, I want to be entertained. If this movie doesn't entertain you, you need help!
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Thrilling film
Christian Jessup13 October 2016
The first film in Oliver Stone's films about the American presidency, JFK is a historical drama exploring a popular conspiracy theory regarding John F. Kennedy's assassination, adapted from the books On the Trail of the Assassins by Jim Garrison and Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy by Jim Marrs. On November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was shot and killed in Dallas, Texas, allegedly by Lee Harvey Oswald (Gary Oldman). The inciting incident occurs when New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison notices several inaccuracies in the Warren Report (the official investigation of the assassination) and decides to reexamine the case of Kennedy's death. Garrison and his team pursue the truth at all costs, and eventually take Kennedy's death to court to ask: who really is responsible for killing the President?

Clocking in at more than three hours, the film has a definite focus on its story, with every element of the film being used to further the plot. Garrison is a modern hero in the film, a city DA that rises to the enormous challenge of investigating the President's assassination. Kevin Costner seems to perfectly capture this type of character (also achieving a thick, charming southern accent) and connecting with the viewers. He is surrounded by an all-star supporting cast, all of which truly become the real life figures they portray. Stone writes believable and engaging dialogue, but since the film focuses so heavily on story, he spends little time developing the characters. Oliver Stone is a controversial director, and his style can be very polarizing, but personally, I enjoyed his strange method of storytelling. The costumes seemed appropriate for the setting, and the set designs were extraordinary, particularly the recreations of 1960s city streets such as Dallas and New Orleans.

John Williams was responsible for writing the film's score, and was nominated for an Oscar for his efforts. Williams was busy writing the score for Hook around the same time, so he actually wrote themes for the film before the film was shot. This resulted in Stone cutting and editing the film to the music, instead of the typical method of fitting the music to the film. Williams gives JFK a tragic, but heroic theme, but also incorporates pulsing synthesizers for the investigative scenes (an unusual tactic for the composer). This resulted in an effective score and a seamless integration with the film. The cinematography was unusual, but played a very important role in the story. The film opens with a montage of newsreel clips from JFK's presidency. It slowly intersperses Stone's own clips, but the lighting and coloring (black-and-white and grainy film) make the clips all seem genuine. Much of the film is shot in this manner, giving a very real sense to the story, very similar to a documentary. I can honestly say this film would not have been the same had it not been for this unique approach to cinematography.

JFK (rated R) contains strong language throughout, and the assassination scenes may be too graphic for young viewers. The 3-hour runtime will bore some; however, any lover of historical dramas or investigative thrillers will finish the film asking for more. The film is an emotional journey, and viewers will always find themselves rooting for Garrison and his seemingly impossible quest. I give this film a B+, finding it "guilty" of keeping me on the edge of my seat.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
One true fact: this is a great movie
hall8956 February 2015
How much of what Oliver Stone presents in JFK is actually true? Certainly not all of it. Certainly not none of it. There's definitely some truth in there but Stone obviously takes some liberties as well. It's quite a challenge to make a film that purports to be a true story when nobody actually knows the true story. You end up interpreting history rather than documenting it. Stone obviously believes there was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination so of course that is the story his film will tell. The conspiracy is presented as fact. And Stone certainly makes a compelling case. He hasn't solved the JFK case. But after watching his film you may well think he came much closer to doing so than our government ever has. Stone made a great film. And perhaps more importantly he made a convincing film. You're buying what he's selling.

Stone uses New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison to make his case. Garrison was in fact the only man to ever bring anyone to trial in connection with the JFK assassination. It is Garrison's dogged investigation which drives Stone's film. There are so many obstacles in Garrison's way but he is determined to get to the truth. But in this case truth is almost impossible to find. Tales of shadowy conspiracy emerge but no matter how much Garrison digs it becomes evident he's never going to get to the bottom of this. He makes the best possible case he can given the circumstances. But the real truth, the scary truth, always remains elusive. Kevin Costner turns in an excellent performance as Garrison. He makes you believe in Garrison, makes you believe that this man is doing the right thing. Costner is the strong center around which the film builds. Everything swirls around him. And in this film there is always something, often many things, swirling. There's an awful lot going on. Stone's film careens past three hours and you get the sense it probably could have gone on for three hours more.

The film does go on for quite a long time and it throws so much information at you. There is a lot for the audience to process here. But the film never really gets bogged down. It is entertaining, compelling and thought-provoking throughout. Costner is the standout performer but the rest of the cast is stellar as well. Gary Oldman makes for an eerily convincing Lee Harvey Oswald. Tommy Lee Jones and Joe Pesci bring unique personalities to the roles of two possible conspirators. Jones is calm and suave as Clay Shaw, Pesci nervous and manic as David Ferrie. Donald Sutherland, Kevin Bacon, Sissy Spacek and a host of others play their parts well. Familiar faces pop up in even bit parts, the likes of Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau and John Candy helping to move the story along. No part, no performance, is wasted. Stone weaves his web expertly. It is a very tangled story, there is the sense that in the end maybe all the strands of the story didn't quite come together. But how could they? This film is a "true story" in which nobody actually knows the truth. Ultimately Garrison, through a powerful performance from Costner, lays out his version of the truth. Through this character Stone tries to convince us. How much of what Stone presents you choose to accept as truth is up to you. You can question Stone's version of history. But there is no question that in JFK he made an excellent film. It may not be a perfect history. But it's a near-perfect film.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The ultimate Conspiracy Theory
KingBrian126 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Director Oliver Stone does it again with another brilliant movie this time the conspiracy of who shot President JFK. The subject matter is already intense and fascinating, so many documentaries about the assassination. What you get with this movie is a mystery. So many people wanted JFK dead and this film brings it all to the fore. The political undertones to this film does have the effect of discouraging the non political to disengage. For those people this movie is boring. For those who appreciate a good mystery like myself the value of describing the participants in the cover up and the shoddy police work that occurred does a great service in showing us a real clear picture of 60's Texas. The drawback which is a feature of Stone's work is the preaching of the protagonist. Aside from that small aspect the film stands on its own as a great thriller. People are free to make up their mind as to whether or not JFK was indeed killed by an inside agent or a mercenary hired Oswald to take the hit. As an intellectual movie that serves to inform the public of the misdeeds of public officials i would say Oliver Stone has provided a valuable contribution to American democracy.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Well-written and well-acted
Morten_516 April 2017
Oliver Stone is well known for his political filmmaking. Whatever your opinion of the American government, the assassination of John F Kennedy and the war lobbying, "JFK" is an fine example of great acting by Costner and impeccable screen writing, in a highly engaging movie. It is thrilling enough to keep you watching through the 189 minutes.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Pack of lies
brad_winslow-131 December 2005
Oliver Stone is a very skilled filmmaker. Unfortunately, he does not have much of a grasp of history or basic common sense, and he has chosen in this case to apply his gifts to creating a work of pure fiction masquerading as fact.

I would advise anyone who believes the nonsense presented in this film to visit the following website: http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html The title of the website is "One Hundred Errors of Fact and Judgment in Oliver Stone's JFK". It basically dissects the film scene by scene, and points out the errors, inaccuracies, distortions, and outright lies that Stone puts up there on the screen.

It's unfortunate that most Americans will never see this case presented in any more depth than in this film, and hence will tend to accept it as fact. It is said that over 70% of the American public believe that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. However, 600 years ago, most Europeans believed that the world was flat. Just because a large group of people are misinformed, does not make it any more of a fact. Facts are unchanging and are not subject to public opinion polls.

There is a mountain of evidence that indicates that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin of JFK. Physical evidence, ballistics, medical records, and eye-and-witness testimony all point directly at him. Of course, Oliver Stone would have you believe that all of this evidence was fabricated, distorted, or altered in some way by an all-powerful shadowy government agency. In order to account for all of this, the conspiracy would have to include the Secret Service, the FBI, the Dallas Police Department, the U.S. Navy (Navy doctors performed the autopsy), most of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza (the majority testified that 3 or fewer shots were fired from the the School Book Depository), and Kennedy's own family (it was Jackie Kennedy who made the decision to have the Navy perform the autopsy). How is it that in a conspiracy involving so many government agencies (and therefore so many individuals), no one has come forward in the over 40 years since the assassination to confess to their participation.

I challenge anyone of reasonable intelligence to objectively look at all of the evidence in this case and not come to the same conclusion that I have; namely, that Oswald acted alone. It is the only reasonable and logical explanation for what happened that day. If Oswald was innocent, why did he flee the crime scene, go home to get a handgun, and then kill Officer Tippit when he was stopped for questioning? The shooting of Tippit was seen by 9 witnesses, and the shell casings recovered were matched to Oswald's gun. Are these the actions of an innocent man? Perhaps the most offensive thing about Stone's movie is the portrayal of Jim Garrison and Clay Shaw. Shaw was a well-respected and responsible New Orleans business man who happened to be gay. Jim Garrison was a headline-grabbing crackpot, who totally fabricated a case against Shaw based entirely upon the testimony of some very unreliable witnesses, several of whom were already in prison, and one of whom was a known alcoholic. Garrison's case was so weak that the jury acquitted Clay Shaw in less than an hour; however, Shaw's reputation and finances were irreparably damaged by Garrison's irresponsible actions. Clay Shaw's life was ruined by this nut, and yet in the film, Kevin Costner portrays Jim Garrison as a hero, while Shaw's reputation is further dragged through the mud (of course, Shaw was dead when the film was made; Stone has no trouble attacking those who cannot defend themselves).

If you decide to watch this film (and, as I said earlier, the film is well made), you will need more than a grain of salt. More like a mountain. As entertainment, I would give this film a 7 out of 10 (it's too long, for one thing). As history, I would give this film a minus rating, if it were possible; since I can't, I have to give it the lowest rating possible (1 out of 10).
34 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Great Film. But be careful QUIRT/1 is GARY MACK
imeldadavies30 July 2009
WARNING: Gary Mack and his disinformation gang have taken over the FAQ section. On this site Garys codename is Quirt/1 or something similar.

For those of you who do not know about the goings on in the research community Gary runs the 6th Floor Museum and though he was once an advocate for conspiracy he believes in an extremely limited one, nowadays to the point he may as well be Warren Commission. Basically, He's been bought and sold a million times.

Please discount the answers he and his ilk have given as almost all are false. Please get a copy of the book of the film. Listen to Black Op Radio and visit the CTKA and Real History Archives.

Jim Di Eugenio whom you shall find on the 2nd DVD set has challenged Mack to a number of debates and Mack has not fronted for one of them. Mack is essentially a coward and a lying one at that. You may wanna ask him how Dave Perry got him the job at the museum and why his good buddy Dave Perry runs Hugh Aynesworth's website. Hugh has long been outted as an FBI/CIA informant/agent and was particularly active during the Garrison trial. The evidence is highly documented. What say you Gary.

Jim is waiting.

Keep the faith Y'all.
15 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I LOVE This Movie. I love it! Love it! Love it!
powermandan26 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I am not American. I don't care about history. I hate politics. In other words, I am a very easy target for a movie such as this. This movie stirred up a lot of controversy for inaccuracies and what not, but I don't know much about the case and I don't care about digging deep. What Oliver Stone brings to the screen is an astonishing and exhilarating plot about the mystery and conspiracy behind Kennedy's death, as well everything that could make a film as fantastic as could possibly be.

The assassination of president John F. Kennedy in 1963 remains one of the most infamous and debating mysteries in American history. JFK is based on two books that dig deep into the case and uncover varies wild schemes about the assassins that connect to the FBI, CIA, mafia and others. I have never seen the theatrical cut, only the 205 minute director's cut. Absolutely not one single solitary minute was wasted. By no means was the movie stretched. It is rare that a movie as long as this can keep your eyes glued to the screen for that long. No other epic movie I've ever seen has gone by faster than JFK. Protagonist Kevin Costner investigates everything about the assassination for the whole movie where truths, secrets, and lies constantly unfold and twist throughout the movie.

Kevin Costner plays real life district attorney, Jim Garrison who is shocked just as everyone else to hear about the president's assassination. He has his suspicions, but trusts everybody that handled Lee Harvey Oswald (Gary Oldman) as the patsy. Three years later, Senator Long (Walter Mathau) reawakens Garrison's interest in the case and Garrison's eyes open and he does all he can to seek the truth. Over the next few years, Garrison buries himself in the case where he makes many enemies and isolates himself from his wife (Sissy Spacek) and children. Absolutely nothing stands in the way between Jim Garrison and the truth.

Costner gives the performance of his career as a paranoid lawyer who is obsessed with something he will never achieve. A really cool aspect of this is the star-studded cast that follow Costner in supporting roles. Sissy Spacek, Gary Oldman, Joe Pesci, Jack Lemmon, Ed Asner, John Candy, Sally Kirkland, Walter Mathau, Tommy Lee Jones, Kevin Bacon, Wayne Night, Michael Rooker, Frank Whaley, Laurie Metcalfe, Vincent, D'Onofrio, Brian Doyle-Murray, Donlad Sutherland, Bob Gunton, and Jay O. Sanders are all the familiar faces I saw. With a cast of this talent, even the littlest scenes are awesome as heck.

I officially believe what this movie says about the Kennedy murder. The killers must've had ties with the government. The records will no be available for circulation until another decade from now. If it wasn't an inside job, how come they have tried so hard for so many decades to keep in under wraps? Then there's the "magic bullet" theory: one bullet could have hit 6 (I think that's the amount) different places at different angles that went through parts of the body. The way Kevin Costner describes this theory is just genius. And Lee Harvey Oswlad was not the only killer. There's no way he could have used a rifle and fire six rounds in three seconds. Cosnter goes frame-by-frame and shows which angles the bullets come from. Eye-witnesses even say they heard gunshots from different areas. Then there's Oswald's murder either hours or a day after the Kennedy murder. There's so many pieces of evidence that prove Oswald was not the only killer. And I was sold on the president's death being an inside job.

The way Oliver Stone makes this movie is incredible. In some of his movies, it is evident that he is interested in style for style's sake. But the way Stone edits the movie and does all the cool camera tricks is merely a reflection on the story and characters.

This is purely a phenomenal movie.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Great Actors Caught Up in the Big Lie!
Mr. Blue-221 July 1999
"JFK" features some of the best actors of our time. Costner, Bacon, Lemmon, Tommy Lee Jones, Pesci, et al are fantastic. But the actors aren't the problem.

Oliver Stone is a liar. He has created a movie in which he wants you, as the viewer, to believe his version of the JFK assassination. He wants you to believe that a massive conspiracy was responsible for JFK's death, and that Oswald was a "patsy."

Why didn't Oliver Stone address the following:

How did Oswald get the job at the Book Depository? The Quaker woman with whom Marina Oswald and the children were staying, asked a friend if she knew where Lee Harvey Oswald could get a job. She said her brother worked at the Book Depository. The Quaker woman called and set up an appointment for Oswald to be interviewed for the job. The superintendent hired Oswald at minimum wage (Oswald lied during the interview and said he was honorably discharged from the USMC). Now let's see, does this mean all of the above people were part of Stone's conspiracy?

What was in the package Oswald carried into the Depository on the morning of the assassination? We know he lied to a co-worker when he said the package was "curtain rods" for his room at the boarding house.

Why was Oswald the only employee of the Depository who fled following the assassination?

How did the conspirators arrange for the motorcade to pass in front of the Depository? Were the Secret Service agents part of the conspiracy?

Take my advice, view this movie as pure fiction! Oliver Stone should be ashamed of himself.
18 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Fifties Are Over!
dataconflossmoor-120 March 2011
This is an Oliver Stone film which delves into the tumultuous intricacies of the entire JFK assassination issue! Kennedy was a controversial president from the offset, primarily for the reason that he was stigmatized by many Americans because of his religion. Besides the problem which many voters perceived about Kennedy's Catholicism, a great deal of Americans were skeptical regarding Kennedy's election campaign tactics. Many citizens felt as though he orchestrated some scandalous chicanery in Chicago in the process of winning the 1960 election. All throughout his presidency, Kennedy was subjected to a ubiquitous and disdainful criticism from all sides of the political arena! Kennedy's nefarious presidency included alleged sexual indiscretions with many women, including prominent stars such as: Marilyn Monroe and Gene Tierney! The most intriguing angle which director, Oliver Stone, focused on, was the aspect of the depraved culture dissemination which prevailed in the United States during the Kennedy administration's reign. Kennedy's assassination led people to believe that our government was motivated by hate and fear, and not egalitarian democracy. Kevin Costner played a district attorney from New Orleans, Jim Garrison, someone who became ideologically wounded when he heard about Kennedy's assassination! His wife (Sissy Spacek) perpetually misunderstood Garrison (Kevin Costner) concerning his vehement pursuit to unravel a conspiracy theory relating to the whole gruesome Kennedy assassination incident! Conjecture which arose from the Warren Report, particularly with regards to the "Magic Bullet Theory", became a cumbersome and ambiguous documented fiasco which invoked a hasty dismissal to this entire affair. Dallas was fast and furiously becoming a city which embraced a bevy of secret service men who were in quest of evidence which pointed to potential political espionage that could be linked to the assassination of John F. Kennedy! The invidious aura to Dallas, back in 1963, made the city precariously conducive to being a venue that would get involved in a malignant nationwide political scandal! What the film "JFK" ultimately purported was not just that the assassination of a United States' President was a conspiracy, rather, this film wished to reiterate how deep rooted this covertly heinous conspiracy actually was! The CIA was now a corrupt arm of the law that became responsible for an egregious subornation by appointed officials to catalyst a nationally unprecedented form of deceit and collusion! The diatribes which Jim Garrison elaborated on, established a callous dichotomy between political temerity with the CIA, and an ideologically emblematic badge of justice with the American people. The scapegoat who expedited the JFK assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald, was believed to be a spawn of Fidel Castro's Communist insurgency. When Jack Ruby murdered Lee Harvey Oswald, this merely fortified the concept that a politically volatile conspiracy was the culprit to this infamous string of murders. Rumination of this entire matter, allowed director, Oliver Stone, to engage in an acute portrayal of the disconcerting vindictiveness which was prevalent in America's boll weevil culture. All three movies; "Natural Born Killers" "Talk Radio" as well as "JFK" were Oliver Stone films which depicted the numerous demented mannerisms that are indicative of many reprobates in the Dixie region of this country. This is not to say that the South is any worse than any other area of the United States. It is simply to point out that they possess a certain style of belligerence which correlates to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. "JFK" did not win for best picture in 1991. The year, 1991, was a year in which "Silence of the Lambs" swept everything at the Academy Awards Oscars Ceremony! "JFK" was an intellectual film which possessed an alert articulation with the American people that their nation witnessed a pejorative, yet mandatory, transformation in their social pattern of behavior when John F. Kennedy was shot! This necessitated a revolutionary counter culture mindset that erupted virtually overnight! In 1963, much of the United States bore a solid resemblance to the 1950's. JFK's assassination evoked a concise revelation to the emerging and indelible culture of the 1960's almost instantaneously, and, with a very intrepid disposition as well. The whole Kennedy assassination affair brought on a neon accented metamorphosis to the American people that U.S. public officials were indeed, extremely sordid, and, that they were anything, but, squeaky clean paragons of virtue! The acting ability in this film is amazing! The list goes on: Kevin Costner, Sissy Spacek, Kevin Bacon, Donald Sutherland, Tommie Lee Jones, Joe Pesci, Jack Lemmon, Walter Mathau, Ed Asner, and so many others! "JFK" is a lengthy film because it is filled with poignantly detailed dialog, not because it is hindered with a tedium of verbosity! This movie is one of Oliver Stone's greatest, and the wry authenticity to this film makes it one of the finest in the history of the silver screen! Without question, it is a 1990's classic! THUMBS UP!! PERFECT TEN!!
12 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
JFK by oliver stone
lauriesmb25 September 2006
I am compelled to comment on the film JFK after seeing it for the first time this week on DVD at my home. i have resisted the urge to view this film until now because having studied the JFK events and all the theories and stories surrounding the assassination, i came to the conclusion that Jim Garrison was very single minded and conspiracy crazy in his investigation of the fatal event that day in Dallas.

As an Englishman and a believer of scientific and methodical reasoning and deduction through facts and not fairy tales, I looked at this event in an unbiased way and decided to read all i could find and form my own opinion based on facts available. I have followed the investigations of Mr Howard Donahue, a very respectable and totally sincere man of outstanding abilities, and his credentials as an expert in ballistics and weapons etc are in my opinion, second to none, and after reading the book by Bonnar Menninger "Mortal Error", it is quite obvious that his conclusions are fact not fiction as in this film.There are very many things stated in the film that are factually incorrect, especially the point that garrison makes about the possibility of Oswald not able to get off the shots in time, which Mr Donahue proved is possible and actually beats that time! yet in the film it states that no one was able to do this! it seems that the film JFK is in itself a cover-up! and make Garrison out to be a hero when in effect he was only partially right and could not explain the bullets path with acurracy even though Mr Donahue showed how the "magic bullet" did in fact do the damage to JFK and Gov Conelly.
21 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews