Interview with the Assassin

I learned an important lesson from Interview with the Assassins. If your elderly neighbor claims to have shot John F. Kennedy... run. Rob Kobeleski, the main character of this film, unfortunately didn't know that. Interview with the Assassin is about a reporter, Rob, whose neighbor, Walter, claims to have been the second gunman on the grassy knoll on that fateful day in Dallas back in 1963. Intrigued, Rob tries to learn more, but gets himself in over his head as a massive conspiracy unfolds around he and Walt, putting both of their lives in more danger than he could have imagined.

The intriguing catch to this film is that it is all shot from Rob's perspective. Rob operates the camera and we follow the story along from his eyes and his vantage point. It adds a very unique allure to a film with an oddly compelling story. It makes the film a very interesting watch and it engages us in the story in a very different way. Of course, without this gimmick Interview with the Assassin likely wouldn't amount to anything, but that is usually the case with these kinds of films; see Cloverfield or The Blair Witch Project.

Personally, I'm a sucker for these types of films. I haven't seen one in this style that I didn't like, and the same goes for Interview with the Assassin. It's a great little film that excellently blends suspense, action, and gripping drama. The story is one of those that makes you turn your head in confusion at multiple points, sometimes out of absurdity but mostly out of genuine interest in the bizarre story that unfolds in this film. There are definitely some odd and possibly unnecessary elements in the film, and the script falters at points, but overall this is a unique experience. Granted it doesn't amount to a whole lot and you can sort of see the climax coming, but for a relatively short film it's totally worth the watch.

A good mockumentry is a hard thing to pull off. To make something fake not only seem believable through the characters and the acting, but also through the plot while at the same time making it interesting, is a hard thing to do.

Interview With the Assign, although clearly distinguishable as a mockumentry as apposed to a documentary from the very beginning, accomplishes this. The interesting characters woven into the easy to follow plot line, make for an exciting watch.

The audience immediately feels some kind of affinity with Kobeleski, being a normal kind of guy looking for work, and at the same time immediately become intrigued by the Ex-Marine apparent third gun man, Walter Ohlinger.

These two characters and their relationship hold together an otherwise shaky plot line, and we slowly follow Ron and Walter as they re-trace Walters steps more than 30 years after the shooting of JFK.

This, although quite obviously a mockumentry, (It must hard to try and convince people it's real when it's not released in theatres. One can simply read the back of the DVD to see who 'stared' in it), is worth a watch!

It's interesting and If nothing else it will get you thinking about one of the most puzzling crimes of the 20th century.

Blair Witch Project meets Oliver Stone's JFK and puts both to shame. Nasty, brutish, and short (85 minutes) and true to life in every other way too. Highly sophisticated and intelligent, it cuts right to our most primal fears while presenting itself in a deceptively primitive fashion. Explores the shadows in our recent history and national psyche with acute, paranoiac vision.

Why aren't there more comments and viewers for this disturbing little gem? The best conspiracy movie(JFK, PI or otherwise) in may a year hits all the right notes technically and plot wise. Filmmed digitally (SONY PD-150) with such skill that you'll be checking your TV/DVD resolution in the first five minutes, the filmmakers use every advantage and disadvatage of the digital format to their benefit. The camera work begins static, rigid local TV news style then slowly takes on a subtle impressionistic style that blurs the line between docudrama and fiction. Viewers not interested in film as a meta-(self referential) text need not apply. After starting with the formal aspects of the JFK mystery, camera angles, do pictures lie, tampered

evidence and conflicting witnesses the film then seems to turn on the viewer so that we are put in the position of one of those unlucky witnesses who were

bribed, intimidated, bullied, framed or killed for seeing just a little too much. The performances are uniformly great, starting with the ballistics man who plays his part so straight I had to mentally check and remind myself this wasn't a

documentary. The ex-wife was brilliant. All the actors were just realistic to the point of surrealism. I'm now babbling, SEE THIS MOVIE

This film had a really good premise - the presentation of a fictitious (to some of the viewers out there : yes, FICTITIOUS!) story within a factual-like packaging. This is something that Michael Crichton has done in his books in the past in titles such as "Eaters of the Dead" and "The Great Train Robbery". When done well, as Mr Crichton did, this technique can make an otherwise ordinary or even boring story great. I thought that this was what "Interview with the Assassin" was going to do.

The film started out well and the performances were good - Raymond J. Barry was particularly well-suited to his role. Later, though, it began meandering and in the end, became little more than just another Hollywood mass-produced flick. I wished that the director would have been a little bit more consistent in his vision. What did he want the movie to be? A documentary (albeit a fictitious one) or just a standard thriller? In the end, unfortunately, he took the latter route.

Documentaries which examine things in real life usually do not have a beginning, middle, and end - life is just not this tidy. This movie, however, does have a beginning, middle, and then a neat little resolution of things in the end. Movie goers can then dust the pop-corn off of their chests and return once more into the grind.

In short, "Interview with the Assassin" was a movie which could have been something new and exciting but instead ended up being something old and mediocre. As a documentary, it is not very believable (at least to me it wasn't.....), and, as a thriller, it is not very good.