IMDb RATING
6.5/10
1.9K
YOUR RATING
Almost forty years after the John F. Kennedy assassination, an ex-Marine named Walter Ohlinger has come forward with a startling claim.Almost forty years after the John F. Kennedy assassination, an ex-Marine named Walter Ohlinger has come forward with a startling claim.Almost forty years after the John F. Kennedy assassination, an ex-Marine named Walter Ohlinger has come forward with a startling claim.
- Awards
- 2 wins & 3 nominations total
Kelsy Kemper
- Karen Kobeleski
- (as Kelsey Kemper)
Robert Thompson
- Secret Service Agent #2
- (as Robert Samuel Thompson)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
9AJ4F
Not knowing what to expect, I recorded this on broadcast TV and was riveted from the opening scene. I usually like movies about ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances, and this was a great example.
The sense of place and tension was gripping, even with no soundtrack. The very lack of music added to the stark feel. A subtle scene involving video surveillance was especially chilling. It makes other movies seem overproduced and fake. They should use this technique in a lot more films. No need to involve a cameraman's angle; just have everyone talk and act naturally. Most movie dialog is too slick.
It's hard to imagine anyone else in the role of the shooter, laconically yet frighteningly played by Raymond J. Barry. He's one of those actors you know you've seen before but can't quite place. I'm going to check out his other movies to see if he pulls off that same quality.
Without giving away the ending, I don't think they could have done it any better. IWTA isn't as overtly scary as a more famous pseudo-documentary about a witch, but I put the two films in a similar category. You have to wonder if this was inspired by the BWP concept. It's excellent either way. I'll have to watch it again to catch anything they cut on TV.
The sense of place and tension was gripping, even with no soundtrack. The very lack of music added to the stark feel. A subtle scene involving video surveillance was especially chilling. It makes other movies seem overproduced and fake. They should use this technique in a lot more films. No need to involve a cameraman's angle; just have everyone talk and act naturally. Most movie dialog is too slick.
It's hard to imagine anyone else in the role of the shooter, laconically yet frighteningly played by Raymond J. Barry. He's one of those actors you know you've seen before but can't quite place. I'm going to check out his other movies to see if he pulls off that same quality.
Without giving away the ending, I don't think they could have done it any better. IWTA isn't as overtly scary as a more famous pseudo-documentary about a witch, but I put the two films in a similar category. You have to wonder if this was inspired by the BWP concept. It's excellent either way. I'll have to watch it again to catch anything they cut on TV.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaNeil Burger's feature directorial debut.
- Quotes
Walter Ohlinger: I was in Dallas on November 22nd, 1963. That mean anything to you?
- ConnectionsFeatured in The 2003 IFP Independent Spirit Awards (2003)
- How long is Interview with the Assassin?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Entrevista con el asesino
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $750,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $48,058
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $10,497
- Nov 17, 2002
- Gross worldwide
- $48,058
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content