Interview with the Assassin

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.

This film is amazing. 100% amazing. Everything about it is so real, all the little touches lead to it looking like a true documentary, and yet there are some great filmmaking techniques that are "happy accidents" that advance it as a dramatic story as well.

The lead actor is frighteningly good, as is the mostly off-camera actor playing Ron... very impressive and just downright astonishing.

Recommended easily, and its very rewatchable too. Hell, even some real documentaries don't hold up to repeated viewings like this mock-one does.

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

Walter is 62 and has terminal cancer. He has a confession to make before he dies, and he chooses cameraman Ron to tell his story to. Apparently Walter fired the shot that killed John Kennedy.

Ron and Walter visit Dallas to see where the event happen, and later they go in search of the truth ... but someone doesn't want them to know what really happened. Toward the end, things get interesting but ridiculous.

Raymond Barry was very convincing, very natural as Walter. Most of the characters in the movie seemed like real people. The jerky, almost amateurish camera work made this seem like a real documentary. Nearly all of the film was told from the point of view of one of Ron's cameras, including security cameras at his house. It was a very low-frills production, with almost no music except for radios and background music playing in buildings.

I'm no expert, but this seems like the sort of film that wins awards or at least gets nominated. If it had been a real documentary, it probably would have.

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.