JFK (1991)

[Tucumcari Bound]

A New Orleans DA, Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) discovers there's more to the Kennedy assassination than the official story.

Oliver Stone's controversial look into the events surrounding the JFK assassination. From a technical standpoint, this film is BRILLIANT. The cinematography and especially the editing are a thing of genius. Whether you agree or disagree about Oliver Stone's conspiracy theory, you must admit that the film is a thing of beauty. I also love John Williams score.

[PowerRR]

Ya its a great movie. Full of cliches but they're forgivable.

[Groggy]

It's an excellent film, although its depiction of history is borderline propaganda. As a work of fiction, it's only real flaw is the WAY overlong ending. Kevin Costner's lecturing becomes tedious fairly quickly.

[Tucumcari Bound]

It's an excellent film, although its depiction of history is borderline propaganda. As a work of fiction, it's only real flaw is the WAY overlong ending. Kevin Costner's lecturing becomes tedious fairly quickly.

And part of Costner's lecture as Jim Garrison was farbricated if I'm not mistaken?

[Groggy]

I'd argue the vast majority of the movie is fabricated.

[Tucumcari Bound]

I'd argue the vast majority of the movie is fabricated.

haha, yeah. I'm one of the many who believes that there was more than one gunmen.

[T.H.]

I recently watched this for the first time in years and this was so much better than I remembered. This has aged amazingly well, there is nothing resembling 1991 in any way. This is what modern films should be like.

The score was great, Kostner will never be any better and the pacing was unbelievable. However, I do agree that the last hour or so isn't quite as great (those monologues are a bit long) but when 95% of a 3hr+ movie is basically perfect, I'm very forgiving.

I pretty much loathe anything that takes place in a courtroom, so I have to give Stone a ton of credit for how those scenes were shot, which were highly cinematic.

10/10

[drinkanddestroy]

The greatness of this movie is IMO largely due to the editing. The way it weaves together a story with so many details, and at no point is the viewer ever confused, is a great achievement.

It is a great movie, though from what I have heard from virtually every historian, a total work of fiction. There's is no doubt that there's a lot about the JFK assassination that we don't know about, and I don't think that, after seeing the Zapruder film, anybody really still believes in the "magic bullet" theory; but the place to go for truth is not this movie.

Normally, I say that a movie is only important for entertainment/artistic value. But this is a rare case in which it is shameful that they lied. Because the point of this movie is supposedly to tell us, "there is much that we have been lied to about, we need to search for the truth," so this movie attempts to discredit one pack of lies by introducing another pack of lies. How can you pretend to be the voice of integrity and truth among the liars, when your movie's version of events is as full of shit as any other version?

I give this movie a 10/10. As a movie. As a complete work of fiction. This movie has as much to do with the truth about the JFK assassination as My Darling Clementine has to do with the gunfight at the OK Corral; the only difference is that MDC was never pretending to be setting any record straight.

[T.H.]

Since you opened the can of worms...

I find there to be more logic in this movie than any of the BS I was taught in history class. While this is undoubtedly a work of fiction, many falsehoods need to be viewed within proper context. Stone and co. were writing/creating a film: details/plot points needed to be arranged so the script worked and certain aspects had to be ignored for running time's sake (possibly the mafia's influence, to name one) and composite characters were obviously a necessity too.

This movie hasn't affected my opinion of what I think probably happened one way or another. It's great entertainment that I assume has caused many people to investigate (or at least take an interest in) what happened that day.

[drinkanddestroy]

Since you opened the can of worms...

I find there to be more logic in this movie than any of the BS I was taught in history class. While this is undoubtedly a work of fiction, many falsehoods need to be viewed within proper context. Stone and co. were writing/creating a film: details/plot points needed to be arranged so the script worked and certain aspects had to be ignored for running time's sake (possibly the mafia's influence, to name one) and composite characters were obviously a necessity too.

This movie hasn't affected my opinion of what I think probably happened one way or another. It's great entertainment that I assume has caused many people to investigate (or at least take an interest in) what happened that day.

If you read Roger Ebert's reviews of this film, he basically makes that point: that the movie's point is to reflect our general anger and frustration at the lies we have been told, and therefore, the fact that the movie itself is full of lies is not that important, cuz the point is simply to say, "WE'VE BEEN LIED TO!"

I totally disagree with that theory. IMO, if you want to say, "the official version of events is a lie," then why not set the record straight? You'd get a lot more credibility that way.

A lot of it probably has to do with Stone's radical Leftist politics. One of the most oft-repeated conspiracy theories is that the assassination was carried out by Commies, so Stone, who is a Commie himself, wants to turn it around and say, "No, it was a bunch of right-wing warmongers who were pretending to be Commies." So Stone gets to score political points for the Left.

[T.H.]

The point is that there is no official version of what happened. The movie is an account of what may have happened.

I also don't see what commies had to benefit from having LBJ in office, that doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

[drinkanddestroy]

Oswald was a known Commie, but of course Stone wants to make him out to be a right-winger who was only pretending to be a Commie. So Oswald was never a Commie; he was just an (unknowing?) agent of the military industrial complex that killed Kennedy because he wanted to reduce military spending.

[T.H.]

I find there to be more logic in this movie than any of the BS I was taught in history class.

Because of this simple line, Groggy typed up a rage filled, insult-laden rant then deleted the post.

One, why are you so hostile?

Two, the post simply implied that I think there's a greater chance that Stone's account - at least on a generic, vague level - that the US Govt, mainly CIA had a hand in the assassination is more logical than the idea of Oswald acting as a lone shooter.

I find it comical that you accuse me of anti-intellectualism in such a theatrical, emotional manner. I don't have any idea what really happened, and don't pretend to know, unlike you.

[Groggy]

I'm hostile because I'm deeply offended by stupidity. And I've had variants of this argument 1,000,000 times before.

[Groggy]

I don't have any idea what really happened, and don't pretend to know, unlike you.

What brilliance. Open-mindedness means some combination of a) professing not to hold a firm opinion on anything while actively doing it; b) looking down on people who place value in facts rather than fevered dementia.

Well here, let me try:

I don't have any idea whether the Holocaust really happened, and neither do you.

I don't have any idea if the Titanic really sank, and neither do you.

I don't have any idea if the Earth has been around for billions or thousands of years, and neither do you.

I don't have any idea if we landed on the moon or not, and neither do you.

I don't have any idea if Barack Obama is an Illuminati lizard alien, and neither do you.

I don't have any idea if the Earth is flat or round, and neither do you.

After all, I can comb through accounts of the Holocaust and find inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts and reported death tolls. If I accept that the Holocaust happened am I just a patsy that uncritically swallows the "BS in my textbooks"? If I think the Moon landing was a real event does this mean that I'm a moron who blindly follows the "government line"? Obviously I'm a tool of the lizardmen if I think Obama is a human being.

Or do you have actual evidence re: the Kennedy Assassination for us to weigh and consider, beyond your smug and vacuous assertion that being noncommittal on matters of fact makes you more "open-minded" than those of us who consider reality important?