CLASSIC MOVIES: JFK (1991)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brief Movie Synopsis [courtesy of Wikipedia]:

"JFK" is a 1991 American film directed by Oliver Stone.
It examines the events leading to the assassination
of President John F. Kennedy and alleged subsequent
cover-up, through the eyes of former New Orleans
district attorney Jim Garrison (played by Kevin Costner).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

REVIEWS:

"Great movie-making, but the multi-gun 'patsy' plot is just idiotic. .... Oliver Stone has just about everybody east of the Rocky Mountains involved in one way or another in the elaborate plot to assassinate John Kennedy. This film is a veritable 'Melting Pot of Plots'. .... Such widespread theorizing is utter nonsense, in my opinion. I guess Mr. Stone just wanted to touch every possible base, and throw in the kitchen sink, to boot. .... I enjoy watching Mr. Stone's 'JFK', but from the standpoint of 'fictional drama' only; and certainly not from any kind of historically accurate point-of-view at all. .... I'll stick with my own (and Vincent Bugliosi's) version of assassination events (i.e., [Lee Harvey] Oswald was guilty as sin and had no helpers), rather than take a huge leap off the conspiracy diving board, where every theory being discussed is as cloudy and murky as the 'Badge Man' image in Mary Moorman's famous Polaroid photograph. The next time you watch this movie, take notes and count the number of times where the evidence is presented in anything close to an unbiased manner. At the end of the 3-hour motion picture, you'll still be left with a blank piece of notepaper. At the very least, the movie should have a disclaimer crawling along at the bottom of the screen every ten minutes while watching it. Something akin to: 'What you are watching is a fictional account of a true-life event. Handle with care; and with lots of salt.' .... So, I'd say: watch Oliver Stone's slickly presented piece of
motion picture entertainment by all means. But don't forget the
salt shaker. Because it shall be needed."

-- David Von Pein; December 2005

"According to [Oliver Stone's] 'JFK,' the conspiracy includes just about everybody up to what are called the Government's highest levels, but nobody in particular can be identified except some members of the scroungy New Orleans-Dallas-Galveston demimonde. .... 'JFK,' for all its sweeping innuendos and splintery music-video editing, winds up breathlessly but running in place. The movie... shortchanges the audience and at the end plays like a bait-and-switch scam. .... The film's insurmountable problem is the vast amount of material it fails to make coherent sense of. .... 'JFK' begins with a promise of intrigue and revelation, though it soon becomes clear that Mr. Stone is Fibber McGee opening the door to an overstuffed closet. He is buried under all the facts, contradictory testimony, hearsay and conjecture that he would pack into the movie. .... By the time 'JFK' reaches the Clay Shaw trial, most uninformed members of the movie audience will be exhausted and bored. The movie...has been unable to separate the important material from the merely colorful. .... It's a jumble."

-- Excerpt from The New York Times; December 20, 1991

ROGER EBERT'S 1991 REVIEW:

"[Oliver] Stone's film is hypnotically watchable. Leaving aside all of its drama and emotion, it is a masterpiece of film assembly. The writing, the editing, the music, the photography, are all used here in a film of enormous complexity,
to weave a persuasive tapestry out of an overwhelming mountain
of evidence and testimony."

-- Roger Ebert; December 20, 1991

ROGER EBERT'S 2002 REVIEW:

"Shortly after the film was released, I ran into Walter Cronkite and received a tongue-lashing, aimed at myself and my colleagues who had praised 'JFK.' There was not, he said, a shred of truth in it. It was a mishmash of fabrications and paranoid fantasies. It did not reflect the most elementary principles of good journalism. We should all be ashamed of ourselves. I have no doubt Cronkite was correct, from his point of view. But I am a film critic and my assignment is different than his. He wants facts. I want moods, tones, fears, imaginings, whims, speculations, nightmares. As a general principle, I believe films are the wrong medium for fact. Fact belongs in print. Films are about emotions. My notion is that 'JFK' is no more, or less, factual than [Oliver] Stone's 'Nixon'...or any other movie based on 'real life.' All we can reasonably ask is that it be skillfully made and seem to approach some kind of emotional truth. Given that standard, 'JFK' is a masterpiece...a brilliant reflection of our unease and paranoia, our restless dissatisfaction. On that level, it is completely factual."

-- Roger Ebert; April 29, 2002

SISKEL & EBERT:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

AUDIO/VIDEO:

ORIGINAL THEATRICAL TRAILER:

MOVIE CLIP #1:

MOVIE CLIP #2:

MOVIE CLIP #3:

BEHIND THE SCENES CLIP #1:

BEHIND THE SCENES CLIP #2:

BEHIND THE SCENES CLIP #3:

MORE MOVIE CLIPS: