Out of work TV cameraman Ron Kobelski is approached by his formerly reclusive neighbor Walter Ohlinger. Ohlinger claims that he was the mysterious "second gunman" that shot and killed President Kennedy. Ohlinger has kept quiet all these years, but has decided to tell his story now that he has been diagnosed with terminal cancer. Kobelski is skeptical of his neighbor's story, after his investigations provide ambiguous answers. His attitude changes, however, after he receives threatening messages on his answering machine, and spots shadowy figures in his backyard. Is Ohlinger telling the truth? Or is there a bigger conspiracy at work? Written by
This film had a really good premise - the presentation of a fictitious (to some of the viewers out there : yes, FICTITIOUS!) story within a factual-like packaging. This is something that Michael Crichton has done in his books in the past in titles such as "Eaters of the Dead" and "The Great Train Robbery". When done well, as Mr Crichton did, this technique can make an otherwise ordinary or even boring story great. I thought that this was what "Interview with the Assassin" was going to do.
The film started out well and the performances were good - Raymond J. Barry was particularly well-suited to his role. Later, though, it began meandering and in the end, became little more than just another Hollywood mass-produced flick. I wished that the director would have been a little bit more consistent in his vision. What did he want the movie to be? A documentary (albeit a fictitious one) or just a standard thriller? In the end, unfortunately, he took the latter route.
Documentaries which examine things in real life usually do not have a beginning, middle, and end - life is just not this tidy. This movie, however, does have a beginning, middle, and then a neat little resolution of things in the end. Movie goers can then dust the pop-corn off of their chests and return once more into the grind.
In short, "Interview with the Assassin" was a movie which could have been something new and exciting but instead ended up being something old and mediocre. As a documentary, it is not very believable (at least to me it wasn't.....), and, as a thriller, it is not very good.
2 of 3 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?