The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald must have been a cathartic experience for the mostly amateur, local cast of this Texas production. Coming from the production house of Falcon International--home of schlockmeister Larry Buchanan--the film is an utterly serious attempt to give Lee Harvey Oswald a fair 'trial' in abstentia. The evidence presented in the film is an accurate reflection of many of the depositions taken by the Warren Commission, and one need not to subscribe to the Grassy Knoll theory or believe that CIA tramps killed JFK to believe that Oswald could have been acquitted. In fact one will learn more about the assassination from this film than from Oliver Stone's repulsive and inaccurate JFK. Sadly, the film cannot begin to approach Stone's level of artistry, as its rock bottom budget straps us in for 90 minutes worth of minimal acting in a minimal courthouse set. The camera barely moves, the actors barely emote, and the best part of the film is listening to a tape of the REAL Oswald during his infamous appearance on New Orleans radio on behalf of the Fair Play For Cuba Committee. For assassination buffs, this is an oddity that you shouldn't miss. Those looking for entertainment should turn elsewhere.
6 Reviews
Overacted and dull but with an intriguing premise
Robert_duder16 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I am a Kennedy Fanatic. Let's get that clear. I've watched every film about him I can think of. Including this one as of recently. The film itself is set up in a very interesting manner. It's almost a reality movie but you are right there as the Judge and lawyers talk directly to you as though you were sitting on the jury. The witnesses are all based on real testimony from the day of the Assassination although all witnesses names have been changed. The film never leaves the courtroom with the exception of a few odd flashes of Dealy Plaza and the sounds of gunfire. The film is simplistic and easy to follow with interesting information but unfortunately quite poorly acted out.
George Russell plays Oswald's defense attorney. However much like his counterpart on the prosecution they think they are performing Hamlet. Russell sounds and acts like a Shakespearean actor and doesn't appear to ask any of the right questions to the witnesses, never does much of a job discrediting the witnesses, and on top of it all seems like he's trying to dig a hole for his client. The role is pointless. In his sole performance Arthur Nations plays the prosecution in the case. He is even worse at thinking he is Shakespearean. His performance is over the top and 10 times William Shatner's overacting. He does a better job proving his case but then it's not hard against Russell. George Edgley is the judge in the case and does the best job of being believable although he looks bored to tears and who can blame him watching the two attorneys make fool of themselves. Charles Mazyrack in his sole performance is the eyes of Lee Harvey Oswald. In a rather curious decision by the film maker we never actually see Oswald but rather just his eyes in an extreme close up. Considering some actual news footage of Oswald is used I suppose they couldn't replace him in real life. His eyes play a decent part considering he does show some emotion. However his eyes look downright creepy making him look guilty regardless.
Probably the best part of the film is the witness testimony and the actual footage, news reels and tapes they use in the case. That part of it is intriguing especially considering the film was made in 1964 shortly following the Assassination events and most people didn't want Oswald's guilt questioned. But then the film was apparently suppressed for many years as well. Although they definitely put you as the viewer on the spot in decided Oswald's guilt the film is STILL laid out to make Oswald guilty whether by insanity or not. Neither side really does anything to make their case but the witnesses give some good testimony. For a study on the Assassination, or Kennedy fans or history buffs or perhaps to see the only movie filmed in this style then you might enjoy it but otherwise the film is a wash. 6/10
George Russell plays Oswald's defense attorney. However much like his counterpart on the prosecution they think they are performing Hamlet. Russell sounds and acts like a Shakespearean actor and doesn't appear to ask any of the right questions to the witnesses, never does much of a job discrediting the witnesses, and on top of it all seems like he's trying to dig a hole for his client. The role is pointless. In his sole performance Arthur Nations plays the prosecution in the case. He is even worse at thinking he is Shakespearean. His performance is over the top and 10 times William Shatner's overacting. He does a better job proving his case but then it's not hard against Russell. George Edgley is the judge in the case and does the best job of being believable although he looks bored to tears and who can blame him watching the two attorneys make fool of themselves. Charles Mazyrack in his sole performance is the eyes of Lee Harvey Oswald. In a rather curious decision by the film maker we never actually see Oswald but rather just his eyes in an extreme close up. Considering some actual news footage of Oswald is used I suppose they couldn't replace him in real life. His eyes play a decent part considering he does show some emotion. However his eyes look downright creepy making him look guilty regardless.
Probably the best part of the film is the witness testimony and the actual footage, news reels and tapes they use in the case. That part of it is intriguing especially considering the film was made in 1964 shortly following the Assassination events and most people didn't want Oswald's guilt questioned. But then the film was apparently suppressed for many years as well. Although they definitely put you as the viewer on the spot in decided Oswald's guilt the film is STILL laid out to make Oswald guilty whether by insanity or not. Neither side really does anything to make their case but the witnesses give some good testimony. For a study on the Assassination, or Kennedy fans or history buffs or perhaps to see the only movie filmed in this style then you might enjoy it but otherwise the film is a wash. 6/10
Conspiracy Buffs Only
dbborroughs3 April 2004
My warning that only those interested in the JFK conspiracies is simply because the film is very very static and so is very dull. The trouble is that the film is the testimony that may have been heard in a trial of Oswald had one been held in early 1964. We, the audience, are the jury and we are asked to judge Oswald's guilt or innocence. But thats the problem, the film is mostly from the Jury Box point of view so it seems to be motionless. Its a dull movie that took me a couple tries to get through.
The testimony is what was known from press accounts of the time and if you've studied the case in any detail, its interesting to see what exactly was known just months after the event.
There is no real verdict and the last word delivered by the legal adviser is interesting in that its the first time anyone seemed to say that no one could put Oswald in the window.
Its an interesting curio but not one that really needs to be seen.
The testimony is what was known from press accounts of the time and if you've studied the case in any detail, its interesting to see what exactly was known just months after the event.
There is no real verdict and the last word delivered by the legal adviser is interesting in that its the first time anyone seemed to say that no one could put Oswald in the window.
Its an interesting curio but not one that really needs to be seen.
More competent than you might think
Wizard-81 September 2015
I had wanted to see this movie for years after learning about it, but it was impossible to see for the longest time. But it eventually got a release on DVD, and I managed to get my hands on a copy. To be honest, I was expecting something really exploitive and schlocky, seeing that the movie was directed and co-written by the notorious Z grade filmmaker Larry Buchanan. But I was somewhat surprised. The movie is not great, but it's nowhere as terrible as you might think. Buchanan not only goes for a non-exploitive route, but seems to have really done his homework - the various witnesses and evidence put forth do often have a feeling of authenticity. It's often interesting to see what the prosecution and defence might well have done to prove their case. Don't get me wrong, I did say the movie is not great - it's often dry and slow (though most real life court cases are), there is awkward editing, the acting is sometimes clunky, and the production values are pretty laughable. But compared to some of Buchanan's other movies, it's a masterpiece.
It didn't totally suck....and that was a disappointment!
planktonrules22 June 2010
This film was directed by one of the worst film directors of the 1960s, Larry Buchanan. Up until he made "The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald", he'd made a few porno films and following this film he made a small name for himself as a crap film maker--with such dreck as "Mars Needs Women", "Zontar The Thing From Venus" and "Curse of the Swamp Creature". In fact, his bad films are the reason I actually decided to watch this DVD. After all, the dozen or so of his films I have seen were hilarious--unintentionally so!. This is because they were so horribly made that they simply have to be seen to believed--and they'll induce laughs in the process! "The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald" is not a terrible film...and this really surprised me. Now I am NOT saying it is good--there is a lot that is pretty poor. But, the overall idea is pretty good and I loved the printed text at the beginning of the movie--it served to set a great mood.
The movie purports of be what WOULD have happened if Lee Harvey Oswald had actually made it to trial. I am sure that when the film debuted the grieving public was no-doubt offended by its exploitational nature, but the idea was pretty clever. The only problem, however, is that the film is incredibly dull for several reasons. First, the perspective of much of the film is as if the audience is in the jury box. This makes the film feel very confined and static. Second, none of the actors are recognizable actors and mostly seem to be inexperienced--and their delivery often betrays this. This is NOT a film created by thespians!! Third, because it comes off like a court trial, it's pretty unexciting--because real court cases are pretty dull stuff. Fourth, there aren't too many surprises or interesting stuff. Conspiracy nuts and everyone else just won't find enough to keep them awake! Despite all the serious problems, the film at least has some merits and is an occasionally interesting curio. But, sadly, because there are so few interesting moments and it doesn't totally suck like the rest of Buchanan's films, it's certainly NOT a must-see.
The movie purports of be what WOULD have happened if Lee Harvey Oswald had actually made it to trial. I am sure that when the film debuted the grieving public was no-doubt offended by its exploitational nature, but the idea was pretty clever. The only problem, however, is that the film is incredibly dull for several reasons. First, the perspective of much of the film is as if the audience is in the jury box. This makes the film feel very confined and static. Second, none of the actors are recognizable actors and mostly seem to be inexperienced--and their delivery often betrays this. This is NOT a film created by thespians!! Third, because it comes off like a court trial, it's pretty unexciting--because real court cases are pretty dull stuff. Fourth, there aren't too many surprises or interesting stuff. Conspiracy nuts and everyone else just won't find enough to keep them awake! Despite all the serious problems, the film at least has some merits and is an occasionally interesting curio. But, sadly, because there are so few interesting moments and it doesn't totally suck like the rest of Buchanan's films, it's certainly NOT a must-see.
The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald - 1964
a_baron5 August 2014
This is half the length of the 1977 film of the same name, and a far superior effort. Made in black and white, it stages the trial Oswald might have had if Jack Ruby had not inflicted summary justice on him two days after the Kennedy assassination. It is more bland, but it has to be said, is also more accurate.
The film includes an extract from the radio interview Oswald gave in August 1963. Oswald does not take the stand in this film, and an insanity defense is set up, the only one feasible in view of the weight of the evidence against him. Anyone who hears Oswald's eloquent defense of an independent Cuba in the aforementioned interview is free to disagree with him in whole or in part, but no honest person could claim he was insane. Nevertheless, the verdict is left not to the scriptwriters but to the jury, which means you.
The film includes an extract from the radio interview Oswald gave in August 1963. Oswald does not take the stand in this film, and an insanity defense is set up, the only one feasible in view of the weight of the evidence against him. Anyone who hears Oswald's eloquent defense of an independent Cuba in the aforementioned interview is free to disagree with him in whole or in part, but no honest person could claim he was insane. Nevertheless, the verdict is left not to the scriptwriters but to the jury, which means you.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
