JFK

Whether you agree with Jim Garrison's conspiracy theory or not, Stone's film is an effective mystery.

The pieces of the puzzle are put together with great skill so that the viewer is kept involved despite the length of the film. The John Williams score helps to build the atmosphere of intrigue and confusion. Costner is rather bland, as usual, but that works well here since he is surrounded by such an interesting group of colorful characters.

This is definitely a good mystery -- and a frightening one if even part of the conspiracy theory has validity.

The 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.

I 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.

As 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.

Oliver 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+