Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotesOverview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditsAwards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage boardPlot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotesDid You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQOther Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDeskPromotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo galleryExternal Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clipsReviews & Ratings for
JFK More at IMDbPro »
| Page 1 of 41: | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] ![[Next]](http://i.media-imdb.com/f86.gif){kind=small} |
| Index | 409 reviews in total |
185 out of 268 people found the following review useful:
One of the best and most important films ever made!, 9 March 1999
Author:
Scott Carr (6sgc2@qlink.queensu.ca) from Kingston, Canada
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.
130 out of 185 people found the following review useful:
Past the controversy, 3 July 2004
Author:
Strangef8 from St. Louis, MO
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.
128 out of 202 people found the following review useful:
Stone lone braveman, 4 November 2001
Author:
Kakueke
"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
89 out of 136 people found the following review useful:
A Stunningly Well Planned and Articulated Film, 11 January 2003
Author:
Collin E. Anderson (dustbrother204) from Ithaca, NY
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.
OVERALL: A+
56 out of 87 people found the following review useful:
Oliver Stone's greatest film!!!, 1 December 2007
Author:
BobStage from Ontario, Canada
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.
51 out of 80 people found the following review useful:
A Modern Cultural Obsession, 29 September 2007
Author:
Michael O'Connor from Canada
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.
19 out of 30 people found the following review useful:
To all those idiots who think this movie is a propaganda., 4 August 2011
Author:
shandar_2003 from India
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.
10 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
No matter how ugly is a truth, it will never be uglier than its absence ..., 18 September 2012
Author:
ElMaruecan82 from France
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 Senator 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.
45 out of 84 people found the following review useful:
A good mystery, 12 August 1998
Author:
Matthew Ignoffo (mermatt@webtv.net) from Eatontown, NJ, USA
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.
23 out of 44 people found the following review useful:
JFK The Movie and the Message Board: My Thesis, 30 November 2009
Author:
Patriotic_American from United States
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.
| Page 1 of 41: | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] |
Related Links
| Plot summary | Plot synopsis | Ratings |
| Awards | Newsgroup reviews | External reviews |
| Parents Guide | Plot keywords | Main details |
| Your user reviews | Your vote history |
Copyright © 1990-2013
IMDb.com, Inc.
Conditions of Use | Privacy Policy | Interest-Based Ads
An 
company.