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.
Add a Review
-
pacific-oconnor29 September 2007
-
BobStage1 December 2007I 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. -
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 -
ElMaruecan8218 September 2012On 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. -
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. -
dustbrother20411 January 2003Oliver 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+ -
Is there any crime or event in American history that has more mystery surrounding it than JFK's assassination? The number of books, lectures, articles etc. dedicated to it could fill the Superdome. For Americans anyway, it is up there with who is Jack the Ripper, who built the pyramids, and did we really land on the moon. OK. Take out that last one. I just wanted to see if you were paying attention.
"JFK" was a magnificent movie. I've only watched a handful of three-hour movies in my life (Ghandi, Malcolm X, Heat, Lion of the Desert, Das Boot, and maybe a couple of others), yet I don't think any captivated me as much as this one did. I figured it only had high marks because of the subject matter or because of a strong cult following. Well, if that's the case, count me as a cult member.
For a three-hour movie with little to no action and much deliberation and dialogue, this movie did wonderfully. I attempted to read a voluminous book on the JFK assassination, but I petered out after one volume and I'd only gotten as far as detailed evidence about the bullet. "JFK" goes into the assassination like nothing I've seen or heard before. I'd probably say that not a thing was left out. There was even real footage which came in incredibly handy during the movie.
No expense was spared in this film and no corners were cut. They went all out with quality actors, a flawless script, and seamless cohesive plot. This is exactly what you'd want to see from a movie detailing the JFK assassination: put the rat on the table and address the elephant in the room. I didn't think Oliver Stone could outdo "Born on the Fourth of July," I was wrong. -
zinitime11 May 2022As an American who lived through these years, but too young to really understand at the time, I find this film illuminating and thought provoking. I've watched it several times, and finally bought both the original theatrical version, and the director cut. While both are excellent, I recommend the director's cut which has added material.
I had turned 10 a month before the assassination of President Kennedy. I'm now 71. I thought we'd know the truth by now, but we don't. Or do we? Perhaps the movie JFK IS the truth.
As I stated before, this is a fascinating and thought provoking film and I think every American should see at least once.
A big thank you to Jim Garrison for digging for the truth and sharing his findings. And a huge thank you to Oliver Stone for putting it on film, not once, but twice, and then revisiting it in documentary form in the 2020's.
We may never know the truth about the assassination, but we should keep looking for answers, and remembering. -
damianphelps6 March 2021What I liked:
Stone doesn't shy away from controversy. Good cast The movie oozes quality. The movie tries to do the happenings justice, it doesn't gloss over things.
What I didn't like: It had a standard Kevin Costner running time. Wasn't a fan of the cinematography. Can get a little preachy.
Whenever I watch a Stone film I always feel like he is giving critics 'the finger' and I like that :) -
JFK is a movie that always frustrates me. I am not frustrated because it is bad or the historical inaccuracies people point out. Rather because it's so good it always angers me how underrated this masterpiece is. This of course did receive generally good reviews with a 83% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 72 Metascore, I think this deserves more than just "generally favorable reviews". Many trash this movie which I, with all due respect, don't get why. If you haven't seen this movie I demand you to stop reading this review, get up the couch and go buy this movie right now.
As you can guess from the very "creative" title, this movie is about the investigation of the JFK assassination centering district attorney Jim Garrison played by Kevin Costner. This movie is even speaking visually a masterpiece. The editing is excellent using both black & white and color masterfully to create this sense of mystery. The performances are all excellent with the obvious ones being Kevin Costner and Tommy Lee Jones who give unforgettable performances, and the score of course is phenomenal. But what makes this movie so wonderful is how this it is perfectly written. If there is a way to describe this movie, it is that the conspiracy gets uglier as it gets going. What I mean by that is first the film starts with a pretty simple well known hypothesis that Oswald actually did not kill Kennedy. But as the three hour runtime proceeds, the conspiracy gets as big as the involvement of LBJ and the White House. As the facts get presented you can see how the truth is uglier than what we know from the Warren commission, and how there is a bigger power preventing us from knowing the truth. At the climax of the movie, Oliver Stone challenges us, "Is the justice system we live in really practice justice?" This is a movie that we all want to ignore to avoid the most shameful truth of our justice system, but as Americans we must face this and question the system we currently have.
Overall this is a terrific movie that is very criminally overlooked. I honestly can't understand why this is not on the IMDb top 250 in a world where Hachi: A Dog's tale and a bunch of Bollywood musicals can make it in. This is a perfect example that IMDb overlook real masterpieces like this one and are just obsessed with Indian movies (Like seriously! Why is IMDb obsessed with Indian movies!). Though I don't give a lot of these, I give this one a 10/10 and a A+. It is very unfortunate the maximum rating is 10/10 in IMDb, since if there is no limitations I would rate this a 20/10. -
In "JFK", historical facts are upside-down. It seems clear that Oliver Stone wanted to sell a story about "backyard of US politics", after the famous "Gladio scandal" came out in Italy in 1990. The audience was ready for it!
Let's remember the facts: John Fitzgerald Kennedy had serious diseases, he never stood up on his feet without medicines, he was in an affair with Marilyn Monroe, he did not have a good relationship with his wife. In the special "freedom" atmosphere of 1960s, Kennedy was shown as a "dynamic president" and "a great husband", but no, it was just a media illusion. Sadly, Kennedy was not even an "anti-war politician". The honest historians write what's happened in 1960s: The Vietnam War was initiated by Kennedy administration. But in "JFK" movie, it is said that Kennedy was murdered because he did not want to enter Vietnam. Another fact is that Cuba was attacked and blockaded by Kennedy administration. Kennedy did nothing good for Cuba. Bertrand Russell, who was not a communist/Marxist/Bolshevik, by having a neutral perspective about US-Soviet conflicts, said that Kennedy was "a crazy politician who loves war". The same Russell thanked Soviet Union on behalf of humanity for its prudent approach to the Cuban crisis. But in "JFK" movie, it is said that everyone says lies to Kennedy about Cuba and Kennedy is actually a peaceful man, "the true guilties" are CIA and The Mafia.
"JFK" movie, is a show with tricks, trying to show Kennedy a "peaceful politician" and claming that he died for democracy and people's freedom. In the final court scene, Oliver Stone shows us African-Americans with their tearful eyes, claming that "peaceful" Kennedy was their "friend". That's called "histrionics".
But what makes this movie great? If you completely forget about the historical facts and watch this "alternative story", you'll see that Oliver Stone really manages to tell it so believable. It has an absolutely terrific editing, shot-on-set videos intertwined with real footages from 1963. Stone creates a tense atmosphere throughout the film. This "alternative story" never goes wrong even in a single scene. It flows fluently and confidently for three hours. Those are a matter of talent. Every director cannot make that. The film has a great cast, too. Even without criticising Kennedys, it is still interesting to see "backyard of US politics".
This movie is a "must-see", but it should not be considered as "reality". In 2023, next year, when the files will be opened to the public, we hope to learn why Kennedy was murdered. -
blanche-21 August 2021I just watched this again. What a masterpiece. The acting, editing, cinematography, production values, all impeccable.
The film is mainly historical fiction. Stone is in no way saying Garrison's theory is what happened to the President. He is basically telling people not to be naive when it comes to the government. I think the last few years have really hammered that home.
My friend's dad was second in command for the FBI in Dallas when Kennedy was assassinated. For years and years, her journalist husband tried (in vain) to get something out of him. He was quite casual about it - oh, you know, I just read such and such. And his father-in-law would say, oh, really? NADA.
I don't think we'll ever know who was responsible for the assasination. But if you want to see a compelling film, this is it. -
pauljamesross27 March 2020Controversial,engaging,emotional..but most of all,very frustrating of the fact a conspiracy was so easy too see. Poor Kennedy's! Let down in many ways,by the war machine,that is the USA. Like many other governments in the world,United States have a lot of secrets! As people,you cannot trust a government so dirty! This movie encompasses all of the dirty dealings behind closed doors in the JFK assassination. Don't even try and forget the other KENNEDY assassinated also...its all connected. The bigger the lie,the more people will believe it is true. 9/11 is another example. Evidence doesn't lie! If you're trying to ask yourself whether they would sacrifice humans or politicians in way of profit or other means....with the dirty USA...its a no brainer! Of course they bloody would. They have a lot to answer too the people about. We may never get the truth!
-
whatch-1793110 February 2021Stone created several characters out of thin air and much of the film is just flat out fiction. Stone admitted that himself, justifying it by saying it was an alternate fiction to the official fiction.
The reality is Garrison persecuted this poor man Shaw, and used Shaw's homosexuality to do it, probably contributing to Shaw's early death.
And the difficulty of firing the shots is hilariously exaggerated, as always. The distances are not remotely far enough to require a sharpshooter. Millions of people who have never touched a gun before would have a good chance of pulling this off with only ten minutes practice with the rifle.
There is some hilarity. Kevin Bacon's character is entertaining and has a hilarious line. The Mr X character, very convincingly and soothingly played by Sutherland, cautiously carefully meets Garrison under the radar AT THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL THEN STROLLS WITH HIM THROUGH THE NATIONAL MALL.
Yes, there are a lot of suspicious things with the case, but wholesale making up stuff hardly contributes value. -
Strangef83 July 2004In 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. -
Jeremy_Urquhart28 December 2023I feel like with Oliver Stone's JFK, whether or not it's actually convincing is less important than how passionate it is, and how it admirably presents a case over the course of 3+ hours, while never being boring. It's a paranoia-heavy movie, and can kind of make you feel overwhelmed and a little dizzy by the time it's over.
Like anything by Stone, I think parts are overblown and come a little close to feeling slightly silly, but when JFK hits, it hits real hard. There are some incredible performances within it, too (Kevin Costner has never been better, and Donald Sutherland's extended scene - just one - is a highlight), and I love the blending of archival footage with dramatizations.
It's surprisingly well-paced, well-acted, and technically quite the accomplishment, and earns its lengthy runtime well. -
cjessup-9291013 October 2016The 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. -
bellino-angelo201416 February 2020Despite JFK is considered a classic to this day and it has a very high score of 8,0 on IMDB I only saw this movie three months ago and I am glad I did it since I could see why it's highly praised to this day.
The movie is about Jim Garrison's (Kevin Costner) journey to find the truth about the Kennedy murder that happened on November 22, 1963. During the course of his investigations he comes across all the people that knew Lee Harvey Oswald (Gary Oldman) before the murder. After a long series of meetings, personal crisis with his family (since his wife thinks that he is more concerned in the Kennedy murder case than his family) and a long trial he still thinks that he hasn't found the truth yet.
I'll discuss what I liked about this movie. The acting is exceptional by everyone involved: Kevin Costner gives one of his best performances of his career and in my opinion he should have won the Academy Award for Best Actor. All the supporting roles are played by famous faces of those years: Michael Rooker and Wayne Knight play Jim Garrison's colleagues, Kevin Bacon steals the scene as a male prostitute that gives Garrison some shocking revelations about one of Oswald's friends with which he plotted the murder while in Cuba: Clay Shaw (Tommy Lee Jones), a Louisiana businessman that was subsequently acquitted after the trial; also Joe Pesci and Donald Sutherland give great scene-stealing performances. And in supporting roles, despite they don't share scenes together, Jack Lemmon (as a journalist) and Walter Matthau (as a senator).
The direction by Oliver Stone is very good and the cinematography is very slick and stylish. The soundtrack is among the best musical scores from 1990s movies (second only to SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION) and it will remain stuck in your memory even hours after you watch the movie. The script is very clever. As I wrote in the summary it may be a very long movie at 3 hours and 17 minutes but I accepted it since it's a movie based on a true story and the long running time was useful for letting the viewers (especially the ones interested in this historical period) know all the details.
In substance, this is a true masterpiece thanks to great cinematography, great direction and great acting by everyone and I would probably consider it Oliver Stone's best movie (second only to BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY). Truly a masterpiece that deserves all the praise and positive reviews and worth recommended. -
erich-krems13 November 2023JFK is a sprawling beautiful shot piece of speculative historical fiction. There are so many A-List actors with bit parts that you can feel their passion for the content through the camera. Jack Lemon, Ed Asner, Walter Mathau, Joe Pesci, Kevin Bacon, the list goes on. Oliver Stone lives somewhere between fact and fiction. There's enough actual footage to make the implausible parts of the conspiracy theories seem like the gospel truth. The whole picture is an exercise in perception vs. Reality. You'll be spellbound from the opening quote the closing credits. JFK changed filmmaking for everyone. There's no Oppenheimer without JFK.
-
KingBrian126 April 2017Director 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.
-
K3nzit28 December 2019In my opinion one of the most important movies that has come out of Hollywood. From the multidimensional story to the top class acting by Costner and Oldman, it's a masterpiece in many levels.
-
planktonrules4 September 2023Oliver Stone is an incredibly talented film director and screenwriter...and it's hard to argue otherwise with films like "Platoon" and "Wall Street" to his credits. His films look great, often feature amazing actors and are very entertaining. But he also plays VERY loose with the facts in some of his films and TV projects. Dare I say he's delusional...or perhaps he knows his films play VERY fast and loose with the facts. Regardless, a few of his films, though very well made, are also pretty irresponsible...and this is the case with "JFK". The film looks great...but it also is filled with paranoid conspiracies and really might leave viewers thinking he's right...when he simply makes things up. As such, "JFK" is best seen as fiction.
The story begins with the John Kennedy assassination in 1963. It then soon skips ahead a few years and you see that an FBI agent, Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) is STILL investigating the case in his spare time, as he's convinced that the timeline presented by the Warren Commission (the folks in charge of investigating the assassination) are wrong. All sorts of other accounts for the assassination are explored and given great credence...so much so that audience members will likely assume all this mumbo-jumbo is real...which it's not.
So, we have a very well acted, well constructed and entertaining film...which is based on strange theories and delusions. Just be aware of this before you watch. -
amalmond1 June 2020This film has cost me a fortune! I went to see it in the cinema in 1991 with my dad which has lead to a lifelong obsession with JFK. Yeah it has its faults but its a great introduction to the assassination. However if i would have gone to see a rom com at cinema i would be £10000 better off (which is what i have spent on books, trip to dallas and large kennedy tattoo on my right arm!) it raises more questions than it answers and almost 30 years on i watch it regularly and still learn new things! Definitely recommend for anyone who wants to know more on the assassination.
-
Theo Robertson12 August 2004Seen the cast list for JFK ? Tommy Lee Jones , Gary Oldman , Sissy Spacek , Kevin Bacon , Jack Lemmon , Walter Matthau , Donald Sutherland and John Candy in one movie . Even if you're not keen on some of the aforementioned actors you'll be impressed by all of their performances and for this reason alone JFK is essential viewing . The only actor I wasn't impressed with was Kevin Costner but I don't recall ever being impressed by him in anything he's ever done . But don't let that put you off because the rest of the cast are superb
If that's not a strong enough recommendation let me point out the technical endeavor this movie required of mixing stock film footage and reconstructions which could have ended up making this movie a jarring unwatchable mess . Joe Hutshing and Pietro Scalia's editing is flawless while Robert Richardson's cinematography is outstanding and Oliver Stone maybe accused of over directing his later movies ( Notably NATURAL BORN KILLERS ) but here everything works perfectly from the director
Unfortunately Stone's script has to come in for the movie's most serious criticism - It's paranoid speculation , so much so that there's a danger JFK goes beyond fiction and becomes fantasy .
First off it insinuates Kennedy was killed because he wanted to pull out of Vietnam . Considering there's little evidence of this where does this source information come from ? It's a well known fact that Kennedy was a fan of special forces and increased the budget and manpower for the green berets . Does this strike you as a man who'd totally pull out of South East Asia ?
Secondly Vietnam would have meant very little from a pentagon chief to the American on the street in 1962/63 so we're to take it a country hardly anyone had heard of led to the murder of the President because he was going to pull US advisors out of Vietnam ? In that case I wonder why no one murdered Reagen because of he didn't send advisors to aid Christian phalangists in The Lebanon or why no one murdered Clinton because he didn't send advisors to aid the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan ?
Thirdly , there seems to be an agenda in the screenplay that Kennedy was murdered so that the Vietnam war would generate money for American companies. I can't disprove this conspiracy theory of course , but think about this - Why would America sacrifice 58,000 war dead , have another 250,000 Americans maimed for life and lose all moral prestige in order to build a few thousand helicopters ? They could have easily supplied billions of dollars worth of military equipment to South Vietnam ( America did do this under the Vietnamization program in the early 70s ) without getting caught up in the quagmire themselves
Oh and there's several other points the script kicks up that can't be proved or disproved like Lee Harvey Oswald being a double agent working for the CIA against world communism , a mysterious character only known as X who sees senior military chiefs planning to do away with Kennedy etc , things that only probably only exist in the imagination of Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone. Stone also wrote the Oscar winning screenplay of MIDNIGHT EXPRESS , read the source book by Billy Hayes and you'll realize that the screenplay to the book is a series of mass exaggerations and inventions on the part of Stone . He's done the same with JFK
I don't want to give the impression that I disliked the movie because I didn't . However much of the movie makes claims and insinuation that can't be backed up by facts and if you think there's nothing wrong making a conspiracy theory blockbuster involving human tragedy think about this : Someone makes a movie called 9/11 where Mossad agents are seen covertly entering the United States , everyone in the WTC called Rubinstien and Goldberg phone up sick on the day of the attacks and a fictional character in the film states that he's seen documents in the White House proving that the war on terrorism is a big conspiracy involving Israel's government and American oil companies who were both behind the attacks carried out on the 11th September 2001 . Does anyone else feel disgusted we might be seeing this production in the future ? -
marekatten28 February 2023Everyone here is praising Costner's performance and saying the film is amazing. Am I missing something obvious? I find the acting absolutely horrendous and the dialogue unnatural and unbelievable.. In addition, the cinematography seems to pick and mix from the worst parts of pretentious avant garde movies and film noir. The music is probably intentionally disturbing, and it most definitely succeeds in that. It's extremely unpleasant and ill-fitting, often coming on in the middle of dialogues.
The movie tells an interesting story in an unhinged and chaotic way. The feeling I'm left with is reminiscent of David Lynch's "What did Jack do?". Perhaps more die-hard movie buffs and critics find some merit in this film, but I sure don't.